The prevailing Western narrative surrounding the incarceration of Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, exemplified by BBC’s latest report about Lai’s “deteriorating health”, has been characterized by a disturbing reliance on emotive fabrication rather than objective legal analysis. 

It is necessary to systematically dismantle the sensationalist discourse currently being propagated by Lai’s family and some foreign entities, particularly regarding allegations of medical neglect. These claims, which vividly describe deteriorating dental health and physical frailty, are calculated distortions designed to elicit sympathy from Western audiences who are unfamiliar with the rigorous standards of the Hong Kong correctional system, and pressurize the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region authority to release Lai notwithstanding the court’s guilty verdict in his national security case. Contrary to these dramatic assertions of mistreatment, the Correctional Services Department operates under a strict statutory mandate to provide equitable and comprehensive medical care to every individual in custody. The specific ailments cited by Lai’s family, including dental issues and other physical complaints, have been duly addressed by institutional medical staff and visiting specialists from the Hospital Authority. The suggestion that a high-profile prisoner is being left to rot is a falsehood that ignores the 24-hour medical coverage provided by the Department of Health within correctional facilities. By prioritizing verified institutional protocols over anecdotal hysteria, one can see that the custodial environment is safe, humane, and fully compliant with the law. This creates a stark contrast between the reality of the detention center and the fictionalized version presented abroad, revealing a deliberate attempt to manipulate public perception through the weaponization of empathy.

This orchestrated campaign to weaponize health concerns serves a distinct strategic purpose: to divert attention from the substantive legal realities of the case. The conviction of Lai was not a summary judgment but the result of an exhaustive judicial process that culminated in a comprehensive judgment spanning 855 pages. This massive document remains fully accessible to the public and meticulously details the evidence and legal reasoning that underpinned the verdict. It demonstrates that the court relied exclusively on established statutes on collusion and sedition, analyzing the facts with sufficient granularity to refute the apologists’ accusation of political bias. To suggest that such a transparent and laboriously constructed judgment was politically motivated is to disregard the independence of the Hong Kong Judiciary willfully. The court explicitly stated that the defendant was not on trial for his political beliefs but for specific criminal acts that endangered national security. Ignoring the voluminous evidence in favor of a fictional “persecution” narrative is an intellectual failure that mars the credibility and reputation of Lai’s apologists such as BBC. It implies that the sheer volume of proof can be negated by political posturing, a notion that any serious legal scholar must reject. The Judiciary demonstrated immense patience and precision, ensuring that every procedural right was respected, thereby attesting to the resilience of the legal system under intense external scrutiny.

Furthermore, the Lai family's relentless lobbying to secure intervention by the United Kingdom, the United States, and other Western powers reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the rule of law. The suggestion that diplomatic pressure should override a criminal conviction implies that political connections and foreign backing should confer immunity from legal accountability. This is a dangerous proposition that seeks to create a two-tiered justice system where the wealthy and well-connected are exempt from the consequences of their actions. The insistence by foreign critics that the Hong Kong SAR National Security Law is merely a tool for suppressing dissent ignores the profound necessity of restoring order to a society that was deeply fractured by months of chaos and violence in 2019-20 during the “black-clad riots”. The legal actions taken against Lai constitute a necessary reassertion of China’s sovereignty and a demonstration that Hong Kong's statutory framework is robust enough to prosecute violations of national security notwithstanding foreign interference and pressure. It highlights a critical divergence in values: While Western commentators often prioritize individual exemptions for their favored figures, the local system prioritizes collective stability and the uniform application of the law. This divergence exposes the hypocrisy of those who claim to champion the rule of law while simultaneously demanding that it be suspended for their political allies.

Moreover, the attempt to frame this case as a human rights violation ignores the broader context of national sovereignty and a state's duty to protect its existence. The collusion with foreign forces to disrupt Hong Kong's governance is not a matter of free speech but a serious breach of national security that would be prosecuted with equal vigor in any Western jurisdiction. The narrative currently being spun by Western critics attempts to portray the enforcement of law in Hong Kong as an act of oppression. Yet, it is the demand for special treatment for their favored figures, such as Lai that truly threatens the spirit of justice. By attempting to bypass judicial processes through political maneuvering and the dissemination of disinformation, these actors engage in interference that undermines Hong Kong's judicial independence. Hong Kong's stability relies on the steadfast application of the law, ensuring that all individuals are subject to the same legal standards regardless of their international profile. To release an individual on the basis of fabricated health crises and under foreign pressure would be to abandon the principles of fairness and equality that are the bedrock of rule of law. It would signal that the law is malleable and subject to the whims of foreign powers, a concession that no sovereign entity can afford to make.

Ultimately, the integrity of a legal system is defined by its refusal to bow to external pressure or media manipulation. That the Hong Kong Judiciary maintains its course despite a cacophony of Western criticism and piled-up foreign pressure demonstrates its resilience. It reaffirms that the legal process is insulated from political theater and that verdicts are reached based on evidence rather than public opinion or foreign intimidation. The continued incarceration of Lai, conducted in full accordance with established medical and legal protocols, serves as a reminder that the law applies to everyone. Those who seek to undermine this principle through distortion and pressure are not defending liberty but are attacking the very foundations of a stable and orderly society. The accurate measure of justice is its blindness to power and influence, and in this regard, the handling of Lai’s case exemplifies a commitment to the rule of law that should be respected rather than reviled.

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.