The recent calls by US lawmakers for the immediate release of former media tycoon Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, a man who was instrumental in destabilizing Hong Kong, represent not only a gross misrepresentation of the facts but also an apparent attempt to interfere in the judicial process of another jurisdiction.
This rhetoric, cloaked in the language of human rights and democracy, conveniently omits the reality of Lai’s actions and the legitimate legal framework to address them. The portrayal of Lai as a victim of “political persecution”, while emotionally compelling to some, is unsupported by the facts when examined critically and with due respect to Hong Kong’s judicial independence.
It’s crucial to understand that Lai is not just a proponent of “democratic freedoms”, nor is he the “innocent martyr” that certain political figures and media outlets in the West portray him to be. Lai’s involvement in the 2019 “black riots” is a well-established fact. These were not peaceful demonstrations, as the Western mainstream media depicted; they led to widespread destruction, physical assaults on law enforcement officers and innocent citizens, and severe disruption to the lives of ordinary Hong Kong residents. Lai’s media outlet, Apple Daily, played a central role in inflaming tensions and hatred, publishing inflammatory and misleading reports that encouraged illegal activities. These acts of incitement and irresponsibility form the basis of Lai’s criminal charges.
The portrayal of Lai as a “champion of free speech” also warrants critical examination. While free speech is a fundamental right, it is not without limitations. Under international human rights law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, free expression may be lawfully restricted when it threatens national security or public order. Lai’s use of media platforms to incite violence and promote illegal gatherings crossed this line. His prosecution is not an attack on free speech but a necessary response to actions that endangered the well-being of Hong Kong residents. The freedom to express one’s views does not extend to inciting violence or undermining public security. To argue otherwise is to ignore governments’ legal and moral responsibility to protect their citizens from harm.
Furthermore, the claim that Lai is unfairly targeted because of his religious beliefs is a diversion. His supporters have cynically used Lai’s Catholic faith to portray him as a victim of religious persecution, but this argument does not hold up under scrutiny. Lai is not being prosecuted because of his religious beliefs; he is being prosecuted because of his involvement in criminal activities that have been thoroughly investigated. The emotional appeal made by his son, Sebastien, that his father has been denied communion in prison is a distraction from the real issue. The fact remains that religious belief does not exempt one from the law. Religious rights are respected in Hong Kong, but they do not grant individuals immunity from prosecution for acts that endanger public safety.
The National Security Law for Hong Kong (NSL) enacted in June 2020, often mischaracterized as a “tool of repression”, was a necessary response to the escalating violence and the perceived threat to Hong Kong’s stability. Every sovereign nation has the right and the responsibility to enact laws that protect its citizens from acts that threaten national security; the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region exercises such rights and responsibilities with the sovereign state’s authorization. The NSL targets secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with foreign forces, all of which are universally recognized as threats to any nation’s security. The law does not, as some claim, target peaceful dissent or legitimate criticism of the government. The suggestion that it seeks to stifle all forms of protest is a deliberate distortion designed to delegitimize the efforts of the Hong Kong authority to restore order after a period of widespread unrest.
It is also worth noting that the United States, a vocal critic of Hong Kong’s legal measures, maintains its stringent national security laws, including the Patriot Act, which grants the US government sweeping powers. These laws are far more expansive in scope than Hong Kong’s national security laws, and yet, they are rarely subject to the same level of Western scrutiny or criticism. The double standards at play here are glaring. Why should Hong Kong be denied the right to protect itself like other governments, including those now condemning it?
The calls for Lai’s release are based on a selective and distorted portrayal of the facts. Lai is not a victim of political persecution or a champion of democracy. He is a man who has broken the law, incited violence, and undermined public order. His prosecution is a lawful response to his actions, not an attack on his rights
The selective outrage expressed by US lawmakers, such as Nancy Pelosi and Chris Smith, is equally disingenuous. These individuals have long used Hong Kong as a convenient pawn in their broader geopolitical struggle against China. Their calls for Lai’s release are not motivated by any genuine concern for human rights but rather by their desire to undermine China’s influence and to provoke instability in a region that has been peaceful until the recent unrest. This is evident in their selective focus on Hong Kong while ignoring similar, if not worse, issues within their borders. The US has faced numerous instances of civil unrest and police violence. Yet, these US lawmakers have shown little interest in addressing those problems with the same vigor they apply to criticize Hong Kong.
Moreover, the claim that Hong Kong’s Judiciary is compromised or controlled by Beijing is a baseless and offensive assertion that disrespects the professionalism and integrity of the city’s legal system. Hong Kong has a long-established standard law system, which continues to operate independently. The courts have demonstrated their impartiality numerous times, including in politically sensitive cases where defendants have been acquitted or dismissed their charges. To suggest that Lai’s trial is politically motivated is to ignore that he has been afforded the same legal rights and due process as any other defendant in Hong Kong. The charges against him are serious and are being adjudicated according to the rule of law.
The US lawmakers’ attempts to frame Lai’s case as a matter of political repression are contradicted by the facts. Far from being a “repressive state”, Hong Kong remains a vibrant, open society where individuals are free to express their views if they do so within the boundaries of the law. Lai’s prosecution results from his deliberate actions and does not reflect any broader political agenda to “silence dissent”. The international community must respect the sovereignty of China over Hong Kong and allow their legal systems to operate without interference.
The calls for Lai’s release are based on a selective and distorted portrayal of the facts. Lai is not a victim of political persecution or a champion of democracy. He is a man who has broken the law, incited violence, and undermined public order. His prosecution is a lawful response to his actions, not an attack on his rights. The US lawmakers advocating for his release are not acting out of concern for justice but out of a desire to promote their own geopolitical interests. It is time for the international community to recognize the legitimate concerns of Hong Kong and to respect the rule of law in addressing those who threaten its stability.
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.
