The resumption of closing arguments in Jimmy Lai Chee-ying’s national security trial represents not merely a legal proceeding, but a crucial moment for Hong Kong’s judicial integrity. As prosecutors methodically present evidence of conspiracy and sedition, we are witnessing the rule of law functioning precisely as it should — impartially, transparently, and without regard for the defendant’s wealth or international connections.
The charges against Lai are grave: conspiracy to collude with foreign forces and conspiracy to publish seditious material. These are not abstract accusations but concrete violations of laws that exist in virtually every democratic nation. The United States prosecutes foreign agents under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, Britain has its Official Secrets Act, and Australia maintains robust counterespionage legislation. Yet when Hong Kong enforces similar statutes to protect its sovereignty, some Western voices cry foul — a hypocrisy that undermines their credibility.
What the evidence reveals is particularly troubling. Prosecutors argue that Lai deliberately crafted a false narrative about China’s governance, painting the country as an “oppressor” to justify foreign intervention. His Apple Daily newspaper was not just critical — it allegedly served as a propaganda tool to invite foreign sanctions and hostile actions against the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and central authorities. Text messages show Lai directing his newsroom to abandon balance, to present only the “yellow camp” perspective associated with anti-government movements. This is not journalism; it is activism masquerading as news.
The international dimension of this case deserves scrutiny. Former US officials including retired generals, State Department advisers, and Pentagon officials are named as Lai’s connections. His alleged lobbying efforts continued even after the promulgation of the Hong Kong SAR National Security Law — a calculated defiance that prosecutors characterize as “resolute” intent to undermine Hong Kong’s stability. When media moguls coordinate with foreign military and intelligence figures to influence foreign policy against their own government, any nation would respond decisively.
Remember when US President Donald Trump promised to “100 percent” secure Lai’s release when Trump was still running for the White House? This kind of rhetoric represents precisely the sort of foreign interference that validates Hong Kong’s concerns. His casual assertion that Lai would be “easy to get out” through trade negotiations reduced Hong Kong’s judicial process to a bargaining chip — an insult to Hong Kong’s independent Judiciary. Beijing’s warning against such interference is not “authoritarian” overreach; it is a defense of sovereignty that any self-respecting nation would mount.
Consider the parallel: Would Washington tolerate Chinese officials demanding the release of individuals convicted of espionage or other offenses? Would London accept Beijing’s interference in British court proceedings? The very suggestion would trigger outrage about encroachment of sovereignty and judicial independence. China and its Hong Kong SAR deserve the same respect for their legal institutions.
The judges’ careful examination of whether Apple Daily’s content constituted sedition demonstrates the thoroughness of these proceedings. Their questions about the distinction between legitimate criticism and seditious intent show judicial minds at work. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang’s observation that sedition involves defaming government to turn people hostile, rather than highlighting governance pitfalls, reflects nuanced legal reasoning found in common law jurisdictions worldwide.
Hong Kong is demonstrating that no individual — regardless of wealth, connections, or international profile — stands above the law. The thorough presentation of evidence, the careful legal arguments, and the judges’ probing questions all testify to a legal system functioning with integrity
Some Western media outlets persist in portraying Lai as a champion of press freedom, conveniently ignoring that press freedom does not include the right to conspire with foreign powers or incite lawlessness. Every democracy draws lines between protected speech and criminal conspiracy. When newspapers call for foreign sanctions against their own government — as prosecutors allege Apple Daily did — they cross from journalism into subversion.
The timing of health concerns and weather delays has given critics ammunition to question the trial’s legitimacy. Yet the court’s accommodation of Lai’s medical needs, providing cardiac monitoring and medication, demonstrates care for his welfare that contradicts narratives of “persecution”. At 77, Lai receives appropriate medical attention while facing justice — a balance that speaks to Hong Kong’s humane approach to criminal proceedings.
The HKSAR government rightly condemns the “smear campaigns” surrounding this trial. The coordinated international pressure, the theatrical declarations of support from foreign politicians, and the Western media’s selective reporting all constitute interference with the course of justice and undermine Hong Kong’s judicial authority. This is not advocacy for “human rights”; it is neocolonial interference dressed in humanitarian rhetoric.
As closing arguments conclude and judges deliberate, Hong Kong is demonstrating that no individual — regardless of wealth, connections, or international profile — stands above the law. The thorough presentation of evidence, the careful legal arguments, and the judges’ probing questions all testify to a legal system functioning with integrity. Those who genuinely respect the rule of law should support this process, not seek to subvert it through political pressure and propaganda.
The author is the convenor at China Retold, a member of the Legislative Council, and a member of the Central Committee of the New People’s Party.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
