Recently, certain anti-China groups and foreign media outlets once again resorted to their tired playbook. In the name of the so-called “Press Freedom Index”, Hong Kong has been yet again assigned a low ranking. In a poor attempt to justify its arbitrary decision, the relevant cluster of Western organizations even handed down dubious “awards” to Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, who is a convicted criminal who endangered national security. Such actions are not only a blatant affront to Hong Kong’s judicial independence, but also a deliberate effort to mislead the international community.

First, it is essential to scrutinize the true nature of these so-called rating institutions. Take Reporters Without Borders (RSF) as an example; although it presents itself as a neutral human rights organization, in reality, it has long functioned as a political instrument funded by Western governments. By its own admission, RSF has received annual funding from the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED) since 2005. The NED itself is primarily financed by the US government and is widely regarded as a “white glove” for the Central Intelligence Agency. More than half of RSF’s budget comes from Western government sources, with over 20 percent from various foundations. Investigative journalist Diana Barahona has even reported that RSF’s so-called “human rights reports” are subject to guidance and review by the US government. When the RSF is not even free from US control, what credibility does it have to serve as an arbiter of press freedom? Its so-called findings are merely performing a political service for its sponsors, not to inform.

The methodology of these institutions is equally questionable. A survey by the Foreign Correspondents’ Club (FCC) in Hong Kong claimed that “around 62 percent of respondents believed the working environment for journalists had worsened since July 2023”. Yet a closer look reveals a glaring flaw: The survey polled fewer than 70 FCC members, most of whom were already predisposed with biased views about China. Any rigorous social science study would consider such a sample size inadequate, yet it is packaged as an “authoritative report” to attack an international metropolis of over 7 million people. This kind of opaque and unscientific approach lays bare its true purpose: smearing for the sake of smearing.

The most brazen maneuver, however, is the attempt to crown a convicted national security offender as a “champion of press freedom” and even to go so far as to bestow awards upon him. This blatant disregard for judicial facts and reversal of right and wrong is a grave insult to Hong Kong’s legal system.

The trial of Lai stands up to any objective scrutiny. It involved 156 days of open hearings, the examination of 2,220 pieces of evidence, and over 80,000 pages of documents. Both the prosecution and defense submitted more than 1,000 pages of written arguments, while Lai himself testified in court for 52 days. The court ultimately issued an 855-page judgment detailing its rigorous analysis of legal principles and evidence, all made publicly accessible. These ironclad facts demonstrate that Lai was convicted only after a fair, impartial, and transparent trial — fully reflecting Hong Kong’s judicial independence and the integrity of its rule of law.

Today’s Hong Kong has long left behind the chaos of past unrest. It is now striding confidently toward a future of stability and prosperity. No amount of smearing can shake the steady progress of “one country, two systems”, nor can any manufactured ranking halt Hong Kong’s forward momentum

The judgment makes clear that Lai was not prosecuted for his political views or beliefs. The court focused solely on law and evidence. The findings show that Lai repeatedly used media platforms as political tools under the guise of journalism, personally colluding with foreign forces and lobbying for sanctions and hostile actions against both the central government and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government. He was identified as the “mastermind” behind multiple conspiracy charges, and his actions posed a real threat to national security. He even directed subordinates to launch coordinated lobbying efforts to push for US sanctions against China. Such conduct goes far beyond journalism — it constitutes a blatant threat to national security.

It must be emphasized that safeguarding national security is a universal practice. The United Kingdom’s National Security Act 2023 and Australia’s 2018 espionage and foreign interference laws both criminalize similar conduct. Had such actions taken place in those countries, they would undoubtedly have been met with severe legal consequences. Why, then, is Hong Kong singled out and accused of “suppressing press freedom” when it enforces its own laws? This is nothing short of a double standard. While the RSF penalizes Hong Kong for safeguarding national security, Reporters Without Borders is really exposing itself as a group of “reporters” without principles.

A closer look at the tactics of these anti-China groups reveals a familiar pattern: Whenever Hong Kong makes progress under the rule of law, they rush to discredit it; whenever individuals endangering national security are brought to justice, they play the so-called freedom card. In truth, their concern has never been press freedom. The “freedom” they advocate is nothing more than the freedom for lawbreakers to place themselves above the law.

Hong Kong’s rule of law stands on an unshakable foundation, and its judicial independence brooks no defamation. We call on relevant organizations to immediately cease their political manipulation, stop distorting facts, and end their interference in Hong Kong affairs. The public must remain vigilant, distinguish right from wrong, and work together to defend the rule of law and protect our home.

Today’s Hong Kong has long left behind the chaos of past unrest. It is now striding confidently toward a future of stability and prosperity. No amount of smearing can shake the steady progress of “one country, two systems”, nor can any manufactured ranking halt Hong Kong’s forward momentum.

The author is a member of the Legislative Council and the UN Association of China.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.