For a long time, Jimmy Lai Chee-ying used Apple Daily as a private political weapon and tool for political struggle, conducting anti-China propaganda and incitement of hatred in Hong Kong and overseas, actively cooperating with Western forces’ strategy to contain China. Admittedly, he produced some concrete and harmful results. He and Apple Daily played a significant role in Hong Kong’s longstanding political turmoil and governance difficulties since its return to China.
Unsurprisingly, Lai’s anti-communist and anti-China ideology, Apple Daily’s influence in Hong Kong, and his clear pro-Western stance have won him favor with Western forces. Western politicians and mainstream media value him highly, believing he possesses considerable political clout to turn Hong Kong into a “base for subversion” of China, at least making it difficult for “one country, two systems” to be successfully implemented in Hong Kong, turning the long-standing turmoil in the special administrative region into a liability for China, or making Hong Kong into a “capital of espionage” that Western forces can exploit.
In the illegal “Occupy Central” movement and the riots that erupted in 2014 and 2019-20, Lai and Apple Daily played key roles in planning, organizing, mobilizing, directing, propagandizing, and funding. Western forces and “Taiwan independence” advocates also actively participated and colluded deeply with Lai. It can be said that after the Cold War, Western forces defined their struggle against a rising China as an ideological confrontation between “democracy” and “authoritarianism”.
At the same time, Lai and Apple Daily fully exploited the vast space for freedom of speech and press in Hong Kong to collude with Western forces in a political and ideological struggle against Beijing. Therefore, despite what they proclaim today, Western forces have never regarded Lai as a professional journalist, nor Apple Daily as a media outlet upholding journalistic professionalism and ethics, because they were well aware of Lai and Apple Daily as vanguards in the enduring campaign engaged in anti-communist and anti-China political struggles.
Lai has no more political value to the Western hostile forces since his downfall, but his conviction is being exploited in a vulturous way to smear Beijing and HKSAR. However, the international community is already aware of the double standards, hypocrisy, and political motives behind the crusade against Beijing and HKSAR over Lai’s case. Therefore, Lai’s residual value to the Western hostile forces is negligible
In 2020, the central authorities decisively enacted the Hong Kong SAR National Security Law (NSL), aiming to thoroughly eliminate the anti-China forces operating in Hong Kong, and achieving immediate results. However, Lai unquestioningly believed that under the protection of Western forces, no one would dare to take legal action against him and Apple Daily. Therefore, even after the implementation of the NSL, Lai continued his anti-communist, anti-China, and instigation activities in Hong Kong. However, he seriously underestimated the determination and capabilities of the central and Hong Kong SAR governments in safeguarding national security and Hong Kong’s interest. The result was that Lai was prosecuted for violating the NSL and the Crimes Ordinance. On Monday, after a lengthy legal process, the Hong Kong High Court ruled that Lai had violated the NSL by colluding with external forces to endanger national security.
Following Lai’s guilty verdict, Western politicians and mainstream media reacted fiercely and desperately, launching a wave of ruthless smear attacks on the NSL, law enforcement, and the verdict on Lai. To support their vilification rhetoric, they churned out a huge volume of misinformation and disinformation, hurling irrational, emotional, and anti-intellectualism accusations, and showing extreme reluctance to confront the substantial evidence and witness testimonies presented and widely disseminated during Lai’s trial. They even went so far as to spread rumors that Lai had been mistreated in prison and suffered deteriorating health, ignoring the fact that the Hong Kong SAR government, more than anybody, had shown unwavering concern for Lai’s health.
Western forces hostile to China reacted strongly to Lai’s conviction because they are unwilling to lose a useful pawn who was willing to cooperate with Western hostile forces in containing China and destabilizing the Hong Kong SAR, along with the propaganda tools he controls and the influence he wields among the agitators in Hong Kong. At a time when Western hostile forces still view their geopolitical strategy against China as a life-or-death battle, Lai’s imprisonment is undoubtedly a significant loss for them. They are also resentful that, under the NSL, it will be much more difficult for them to recruit anti-China agitators in Hong Kong and turn the city into a base for subversion.
With China’s rise as a powerful nation and its firm resolve and capability to safeguard national security, Western hostile powers, fearing inevitable retaliation, will not take any fierce action to “rescue” Lai, let alone impose significant “sanctions” or “retaliation” on China. They have also observed that Lai’s conviction has not provoked resentment among Hong Kong people; most Hong Kong residents agree that Lai deserved his punishment, which has enhanced their confidence in the NSL. Western politicians and mainstream media’s unreasonable criticism of Beijing and HKSAR, and their hypocritical concern for Lai, will only lead more Hong Kong people to see their hypocrisy and the ruthless nature of their political and ideological warfare against China.
Lai has no more political value to the Western hostile forces since his downfall, but his conviction is being exploited in a vulturous way to smear Beijing and HKSAR. However, the international community is already aware of the double standards, hypocrisy, and political motives behind the crusade against Beijing and HKSAR over Lai’s case. Therefore, Lai’s residual value to the Western hostile forces is negligible.
The author is a professor emeritus of sociology at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, and a consultant for the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
