British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper’s remarks on the conviction of Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, echoed by some Western politicians and media outlets, once again reveal a familiar pattern – selective outrage, willful ignorance of facts and an attempt to politicize a judicial case handled strictly in accordance with the law. Such reactions are irresponsible and disrespectful to Hong Kong’s judicial independence and the rule-of-law principles these critics claim to defend.
Lai’s verdict was the outcome of a meticulous judicial process that lasted 156 days, examined extensive evidence and culminated in an 855-page judgment. The ruling was issued by a panel of three designated judges who analyzed Lai’s communications, meetings with foreign officials and content published by Apple Daily and related entities. Every major defense argument was examined and rejected with detailed reasoning. Condemnations issued on the very day the verdict was announced suggest these critics had no intention of engaging with the judgment itself.
The substance of the case has also been deliberately distorted. The ruling is not an attack on journalism or press freedom, but a judgment on proven criminal conduct. The court made clear that Lai was convicted not for expressing opinions, but for conspiring to collude with external forces, calling for foreign sanctions and publishing seditious materials with the intent of undermining national governance. Judges identified him as the “mastermind” behind these activities, noting that his actions went well beyond legitimate journalistic practice.
Attempts by foreign politicians to cast Lai as a “defender of press freedom” ring hollow. Hong Kong continues to host a diverse and active media environment, with international outlets operating freely. The Law of the People’s Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region does not target lawful reporting or commentary; it establishes legal boundaries against acts that endanger national security. Comparable limits exist in many jurisdictions, including those now criticizing Hong Kong. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous or hypocritical.
Claims that the trial lacked due process or humane treatment are equally misleading. Proceedings were open and transparent, with foreign diplomats attending as observers. Lai was represented by legal counsel, exercised his right to defense and denied all charges. The court repeatedly confirmed that he received appropriate medical care during detention and that procedural safeguards were respected. Characterizations of the trial as “unfair” ignore these documented facts.
Critics have also questioned the absence of a jury, overlooking that this arrangement is explicitly provided for under the law. The designated-judge mechanism ensures professionalism and consistency in complex national-security cases – a practice not unique internationally.
What is particularly troubling about remarks from the UK foreign secretary and others is their overt interference in Hong Kong’s judicial affairs. The case falls within the jurisdiction of the Hong Kong SAR, which bears a constitutional responsibility to safeguard national security under the “one country, two systems” framework. External forces should stop interfering in Hong Kong’s judicial processes and China’s internal affairs.
Lai is not a “democracy fighter”, but an individual who incited turmoil, glorified street violence and openly lobbied foreign governments to sanction his own country. His publications thrived on sensationalism, misinformation and social division.
Hong Kong’s handling of the Lai case demonstrates its zero-tolerance stance toward acts that endanger national security while reaffirming its commitment to the rule of law. Attempts to exploit the case for political theater should give way to respect for facts, law and Hong Kong’s judicial autonomy. [Abridged]
Editorial, China Daily
No Comments