The current debate surrounding the trial of Jimmy Lai Chee-ying provides an instructive case study of how Western media, such as The Week (UK) and the New York Post, manipulate narratives to erode confidence in Hong Kong’s institutions. These media outlets, on the same day, demanded that their governments intervene in Lai’s trial, as if the outcome of a judicial process in Hong Kong were open for diplomatic negotiation. This simultaneous outcry was not an act of genuine concern for the law but a deliberate attempt to pressure a Hong Kong court into submission, somehow assuming that its Judiciary is subject to Western political influence. The irony is striking: These same Western voices continually extol the sanctity of judicial independence in their own countries, yet they advocate foreign political interference when rulings emerge from Hong Kong courts.
Such demands rest on an arrogant assumption that the will of foreign states can override Hong Kong’s Judiciary. This patronizing perspective echoes the legacy of colonial attitudes, in which legal authority was presumed to bend under external command. In reality, Hong Kong operates under a common law system recognized worldwide for its consistency, transparency, and reasoned judgments. Decisions are based on the evidence presented in court, rather than on the fluctuating demands of political actors abroad. The notion that Beijing, London, or Washington could dismiss or dictate the outcome of a court trial in Hong Kong contradicts the very principle of the rule of law that these foreign critics claim to defend. The transparency of Hong Kong’s judicial process ensures that the public is well-informed about the legal proceedings as well as the fairness of trials.
Equally misleading are claims that the Hong Kong SAR National Security Law (NSL) is vague. Every sovereign jurisdiction carries an obligation to legislate safeguards against acts that threaten national stability, and China is no exception. The NSL was introduced through established legislative channels and provides for judicial oversight, with each case adjudicated in open court. Its enforcement addresses real risks posed by efforts to enlist foreign powers against China, and it closes legal gaps that once left the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vulnerable to orchestrated unrest. The law plays a crucial role in protecting China’s sovereignty and the HKSAR’s stability. To condemn China for implementing what all states require for their survival reveals not a principled objection but an effort to strip China of protective measures that Western countries maintain for themselves.
In the face of Western media outlets that portray Hong Kong’s legal system as flawed, it is essential to recognize that they are, in fact, describing their own aspirations: a world in which Western media and politicians can override judicial reasoning whenever it suits their political agenda
The West’s focus on Lai’s personal circumstances is another carefully crafted distraction. Western editors emphasize his age and health to recast him as a “persecuted dissident” deserving sympathy rather than as a defendant facing serious national security-related charges. This instrumentalizes his condition for political propaganda effect and masks the fact that his actions went far beyond expressing an opinion. His media network actively called for foreign sanctions against the SAR and China as a whole. No state would tolerate such conduct under the guise of press freedom, and Western governments in similar cases have prosecuted defendants with even sharper severity.
Another distortion lies in the portrayal of prison conditions in Hong Kong. These accusations imagine a system marked by “mistreatment” intended to tarnish the credibility of the judicial institution. Yet the reality is entirely different. The Correctional Services Department runs facilities that adhere to international standards, with medical treatment, adequate nutrition and access to family visits and religious services. Lai has received proper medical care throughout his detention, and his rights have been fully respected. Importantly, there is no record of prisoners who completed their sentences in Hong Kong subsequently complaining of mistreatment. The absence of such testimony across decades is a testament to the professional standards of the prison service.
These facts contrast starkly with the narrative presented by the Western media. Their chosen method is to amplify imagined grievances and suppress all context, deliberately politicizing the judicial proceedings. They demand that London and Washington intervene in a legal process that is open to public scrutiny and grounded in statute, which exposes their true intentions. These Western interventions are driven not by humanitarian concern but by the desire to project influence. The trial has become a convenient tool through which Western commentators seek to delegitimize the HKSAR’s governance and place China under constant rhetorical attack. The implications of such interference are grave, as it shows contempt for China’s sovereignty and erodes on the HKSAR’s judicial independence.
The more profound significance of this episode is therefore not in Lai’s guilt or innocence, which is for the courts to determine, but in the way the West reveals its own contradictions. It praises the rule of law as the bedrock of its own societies while treating it as optional when other jurisdictions apply their laws in a manner incongruent to Western interests. It demands independence of its own judges while piling up political pressure on Hong Kong’s Judiciary. It condemns political interference in principle but insists that foreign governments should pressure China to free a defendant whose trial is still ongoing. Such glaring double standards expose the political objectives behind the Western narrative.
Hong Kong is steadfast in its commitment to the impartial operation of its legal system. Courtrooms hear arguments in full, judgments are reasoned and published, and the rights of defendants are rigorously safeguarded. Prisons treat inmates with utmost human dignity, and there is no credible evidence of abuse. Trials proceed based on facts and applicable law, not diplomatic bargains.
In the face of Western media outlets that portray Hong Kong’s legal system as flawed, it is essential to recognize that they are, in fact, describing their own aspirations: a world in which Western media and politicians can override judicial reasoning whenever it suits their political agenda.
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.
