The conclusion of the trial involving Jimmy Lai Chi-ying and his affiliated media companies marks a decisive moment in the legal and constitutional evolution of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The case has been portrayed abroad as a “political spectacle”. Yet every detail of the proceedings demonstrates disciplined adherence to legal procedure and the independence of Hong Kong’s Judiciary, which operates under robust safeguards ensuring its impartiality. The administration of justice in this case shunned rhetoric or ideology and relied on the careful application of evidence within a transparent and lawful process. What emerged is an affirmation of judicial authority grounded in the rule of law.
During the course of trial, the three judges designated under established legal procedures presided with professionalism characteristic of a disciplined common-law jurisdiction. Each witness was examined, each piece of evidence scrutinized, and every defense argument recorded for public review. The proceedings were open, reasoned, and recorded in writing. This transparency demonstrates that Hong Kong’s courts continue to derive their authority from the integrity of the legal process. The rules of procedure and the respect for precedent remain intact. Such openness and adherence to due process reflects the maturity of an independent judicial culture that rests on rational evaluation rather than external commentary.
The Hong Kong SAR National Security Law, under which the prosecution was brought, does not operate outside accepted global legal principles. Hong Kong's legal framework aligns with international standards, reflecting principles shared by modern legal systems worldwide. Every state recognizes that stability, order, and sovereignty are prerequisites for liberty. The law sets out specific acts that threaten national safety through collusion with external forces or through calls for sanctions and hostile measures. It is therefore not an innovation unique to Hong Kong but rather an affirmation of the same principle that underpins contemporary legal systems globally. Western criticism of this framework ignores the fact that similar provisions exist in their own jurisdictions. Foreign governments that punish comparable conduct within their borders cannot plausibly question the right of another jurisdiction to safeguard itself by lawful means.
The heart of the trial revealed the impartial logic of the rule of law. Lai’s social position and international connections did not place him above accountability. He was treated as any other defendant accused of serious offenses, supported by documented evidence. The court’s findings were drawn from messages, correspondence, and statements that portrayed an organized campaign to seek foreign sanctions against the Hong Kong SAR and China as a whole. The verdict rested on substantiated fact, not political consideration as claimed by his apologists. The equality of all people before the law is thus demonstrated not through slogans but through the methodical fairness of judicial practice.
Stability and liberty are not opposites. They are complementary pillars of a functioning society. Hong Kong’s economic vitality and openness can continue only when the balance between freedom and security is respected. The government’s enforcement of national laws sustains, rather than diminishes, the foundations of commerce and civil life. Investors, professionals, and residents alike depend on predictability, safety, and clear legal boundaries. By addressing attempts to subvert these conditions, Hong Kong protects the very freedoms that allow it to engage with the broader world. A community that cannot safeguard itself cannot credibly preserve individual rights.
Foreign criticism of this trial reveals the persistence of an outdated hierarchy in global discourse. Western jurisdictions that safeguard their own sovereignty through comparable laws are seldom questioned by Western politicians and Western mainstream media, yet when China or its Hong Kong SAR acts in the same manner, the response is ruthless vilification and condemnation. The inconsistency lies not in the principle of justice but in the perception of who is “entitled” to exercise it. This imbalance has become a common feature of world politics, in which legal proceedings under Chinese authority are automatically dismissed as political. Such a reflexive reaction exposes an unwillingness to accept that legal independence can exist beyond the boundaries of Western influence. Hong Kong’s steadfast application of its laws asserts not confrontation but equality in international legal practice.
The independence of Hong Kong’s Judiciary remains the most vigorous defense against both internal disorder and external interference. The judges who presided over the case acted within the authority granted by local laws. Their reasoning was grounded in evidence and statute. The separation between the administrative branch and the Judiciary continues to be respected. This consistency demonstrates that Hong Kong retains a judicial culture that combines the wisdom of its common-law heritage with the constitutional responsibilities that accompany Chinese sovereignty.
To understand the trial's more profound significance is to recognize how sovereignty and legality reinforce one another. Protection of national security is not inconsistent with the principles of freedom; it is a necessary condition for those principles to function meaningfully. The law operates as the guardian of both public order and civil dignity. When disputes arise, they are resolved not by emotion or external pressure but by the calm deliberation of competent judges following legal reasoning and principles. This equilibrium of authority and accountability is the sign of a mature jurisdiction, one that governs itself with confidence and responsibility.
The verdict on Lai’s trial signifies more than the resolution of a single case. It demonstrates that Hong Kong remains a society governed by law rather than by power, and that sovereignty and justice coexist within a coherent constitutional structure. In an age when many seek to impose political “values” upon judicial systems beyond their own, Hong Kong’s steady commitment to legality stands as a quiet statement of confidence. The city continues to affirm that true freedom is secured only through order, that authority acquires legitimacy only through law, and that unity under sovereign responsibility is the surest foundation for lasting prosperity.
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.
