Andrew Fung says the outlet betrayed its readers by sacrificing facts for the sake of political propaganda

The Wall Street Journal's Jan 16 editorial about the prison conditions of Jimmy Lai Chee-ying is nothing more than political propaganda riddled with lies, wholly detached from facts. The editorial, titled How China Abuses Jimmy Lai, claimed that Lai has suffered “abuses” in terms of four unjust treatments in prison. These were entirely fabricated, on purpose, by the WSJ’s editorial board. Such blatant distortions of facts, which are in total disregard of journalistic ethics and professionalism, shouldn’t have been associated with a reputable media outlet. The WSJ editorial could only be deciphered in the context that William McGurn, a member of the WSJ’s editorial board, is politically aligned with Lai and is known to share an identical adversarial stance toward China.

During the mitigation hearing for Lai last week, the prosecution pointed out that Lai’s weight has not fluctuated significantly during his imprisonment. Both his diabetes and dental problems have been appropriately cared for by medical professionals.

Regarding the claim of solitary confinement, the Correctional Services Department has repeatedly clarified that this arrangement was made at Lai's own request. It is believed that this was due to Lai's desire to avoid harassment from other inmates, which is entirely reasonable.

The claim that “when Lai is transferred for exercise (one hour a day) or elsewhere, he is forced to wear a full-body cloak that covers his head" is completely inconsistent with photos of Lai taken by reporters over the past several years. In those photos, Lai was seen in brown prison attire and slippers. There was no trace of the claimed "full-body cloak". Moreover, Hong Kong's prisons have previously housed some high-profile figures that also attracted media attention, yet there has never been mention or sight of such a "full-body cloak".

The claim that Lai has been denied the opportunity to take the Eucharist is also baseless. It simply requires special arrangements for a priest to visit Lai, given the remote location of the prison. This in no way equates to denial. In fact, Lai himself has never expressed any objection to such arrangements. The fact is, Lai initially decided not to receive communion, a decision that was later reversed.

ALSO READ: Western apologists badly mischaracterize Jimmy Lai’s case

As part of the campaign championed by Lai’s Western apologists, the WSJ editorial’s manipulative narrative on Lai served only one purpose: to promote foreign interference in Lai’s criminal case by portraying Hong Kong’s legal system in a bad light. It urged US House Speaker Mike Johnson to raise the case of Lai when he addresses the UK Parliament on Tuesday, saying that it is “an opportunity to bolster the joint British-American effort to free newsman Jimmy Lai from his Hong Kong prison cell”.

British Parliament is a stronghold of “China hawks”. It is logical that the author(s) of the WSJ editorial would have hoped that Johnson, who called China an "adversary" of the United States last September, would gang up with the China hawks in the British Parliament to pressure British Prime Minister Keir Starmer to poke into Lai’s case when he visits Beijing at the end of this month.

Contrary to the WSJ’s fact-distorting commentary, Hong Kong's Correctional Services Department consistently upholds international standards in its operation, which is subject to oversight by Justices of the Peace, a system that has been in place since long before the 1997 handover. Some former Legislative Council members, who are also Justices of the Peace and are personally acquainted with Lai have had opportunities to inspect the prison under existing regulations. It is inconceivable that there could be any "abuse" of inmates, especially of someone as high-profile as Lai.

READ MORE: Propaganda narratives on Jimmy Lai’s case crumble under weight of facts

During the mitigation hearings for Lai last week, if Lai believed he had been unfairly treated in prison, would he have remained silent? The fact that Lai and his defense team never complained about “mistreatment” in prison rebuts the WSJ's baseless commentary. By sacrificing facts for the sake of political propaganda, the WSJ and its peers abused press freedom and betrayed their readers.

The author is a former information coordinator of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government and a member of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.