Virginia Lee says the critics’ response to the court verdict is intellectually inconsistent

Joshua Wong Chi-fung’s sentencing to 10 years’ imprisonment for foreign collusion triggered a predictable chorus of condemnation from Western governments, politicians, advocacy organizations, and media outlets.

Collectively, these Western critics or apologists advance a single narrative: Wong is a victim of political persecution, the Hong Kong SAR National Security Law criminalizes dissent, and Hong Kong’s courts have become instruments of politics. The truth is: This narrative bears no resemblance to the facts.

The most striking feature of Wong’s advocates’ narrative is not what has been said, but what has been deliberately left unsaid. None of the critics has seriously engaged with the conduct to which Wong pleaded guilty. The narrative has been invariably framed as a question of ideology and political identity. The actual actions before the court have totally disappeared from the narrative. This collective omission is not accidental.

If the facts were confronted directly, the critics’ arguments wouldn’t stand. Wong was not prosecuted for advocating democracy. He was not prosecuted for criticizing the special administrative region government’s policies. He was not prosecuted for participating in political debate, expressing opinions or holding particular beliefs. He pleaded guilty to conspiracy to collude with foreign forces to cause harm to his compatriots. The case involved concerted efforts to solicit foreign sanctions, blockages, external political pressure and other hostile measures against China as a whole and the HKSAR in particular.

READ MORE: HK activist Joshua Wong sentenced to 10 years behind bars

The crucial question, therefore, is straightforward. Should organized attempts to persuade foreign governments to impose sanctions and other hostile actions against one’s own country and home city be regarded as ordinary political participation? All sovereign states would be expected to answer “no”.

Would Washington consider it acceptable for political activists to lobby foreign governments to impose sanctions on the United States? Would London regard coordinated campaigns aimed at encouraging foreign powers to take punitive measures against the United Kingdom as democratic activity? Would Paris, Berlin, Ottawa or Canberra ever countenance such conduct as legitimate political expression in their own countries? The answer is self-evident — if only they have the courage to face the reality.

The reason these questions are avoided by Western critics is equally obvious. Once the issue is examined through the lens of sovereignty and national security rather than political branding, their exceptionalism becomes impossible to justify. The deeper problem lies in the extraordinary double standards embedded within much of their criticism.

Over the past decade, Western governments have dramatically expanded their own national security powers. Foreign interference, overseas influence operations and external political manipulation have become central concerns across the Western world. The US has intensified enforcement measures against foreign influence activities. The UK has strengthened national security legislation. Australia has introduced extensive foreign influence transparency requirements. Canada has established new mechanisms to monitor and counter foreign interference.

The underlying principle in all these measures is remarkably consistent. Sovereign states have not only the right but also the duty to protect themselves from external political intervention. Yet when Hong Kong acts on the same principle, these governments suddenly reverse course. Conduct that would trigger serious national security concerns in their own jurisdictions is recast as protected political activity when it occurs in Hong Kong.

This contradiction exposes the weakness at the heart of their criticism. The issue is not national security. The issue is who is exercising it. A principle that is legitimate in Washington, London, Ottawa, Canberra, Paris, and Berlin cannot suddenly become illegitimate when applied in China’s territory — Hong Kong.

Either national security matters for all jurisdictions, or it matters only for certain jurisdictions. It is impossible to maintain both positions simultaneously.

Equally flawed is the claim that the case demonstrates the collapse of the rule of law in Hong Kong. It rests on a misinterpretation of what the rule of law actually means. The rule of law does not require courts to produce outcomes favored by Western media, governments, or advocacy groups. It requires legal disputes to be resolved according to law through established judicial processes.

In this case, the proceedings took place before the High Court under Hong Kong’s common law system. The defendant had access to legal representation, received legal advice, entered a guilty plea, and retained the right to appeal. The court issued its judgment through established legal procedures.

The critics have responded to the verdict as though disagreement with a judgment is itself evidence of judicial failure. Such reasoning is fundamentally incompatible with genuine respect for judicial independence. Courts are not independent because they reach politically fashionable conclusions. Courts are independent because they apply the law regardless of political pressure. What the critics appear unable to accept is that judicial independence includes the independence to reach conclusions that they dislike.

Beyond the legal dimensions of the case lies a broader constitutional reality. For years, a segment of Hong Kong’s opposition camp promoted a political strategy built on internationalizing local disputes and mobilizing external pressure to influence political outcomes. The underlying assumption was that foreign governments could decisively shape Hong Kong’s future. That approach was not simply a political tactic. It reflected a deeper belief that external leverage could substitute for domestic political processes.

Wong’s case clearly rejects that logic once again. Under the “one country, two systems” principle, Hong Kong enjoys a high degree of autonomy, but it remains an inalienable part of China. The constitutional framework for Hong Kong was never designed to allow political actors to invite foreign governments to meddle with China’s sovereignty, national security, or governing authority. This is the case’s broader significance. The issue extends far beyond a single individual or a single sentence. What is being reaffirmed is a constitutional principle: Hong Kong’s future will be determined within its constitutional order, not through foreign intervention, geopolitical pressure or overseas political campaigns.

ALSO READ: Legal principles affirmed in Joshua Wong verdict

Foreign governments and entities are free to express opinions. They are not entitled to demand that Hong Kong suspend its laws whenever a politically sympathetic defendant appears before the courts. Such a position does not defend the rule of law. It places political preference above legal principle.

The apologists’ response, therefore, is intellectually inconsistent. Governments that insist upon defending their own sovereignty, enforcing their own national security laws and countering their own foreign interference threats are demanding that Hong Kong behave differently from them.

Wong’s case has revealed more than a disagreement over one judgment. It has exposed a broader credibility problem within the Western criticism itself. Those who seek to challenge the verdict must first answer a fundamental question: Why should China be denied the rights of sovereignty, constitutional protection and national security over its territory — Hong Kong, which Western states routinely claim for themselves? Until that question is answered, criticisms surrounding this case will continue to appear less like a defense of universal principles and more like an exercise in selective standards.

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.