Dominic Lee says Hong Kong's legal system continues to operate under common law principles, with robust procedural protections for defendants

A recent opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal has called upon US House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson to use his upcoming address to the British Parliament as an opportunity to demand the release of Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, characterizing the former Hong Kong media tycoon's conviction as a “travesty of justice” and an “assault on press freedom”. This commentary, like much of the Western media coverage surrounding the case, reveals a troubling disconnect from both legal reality and international norms. The conviction of Lai under the Hong Kong SAR National Security Law (NSL) has been portrayed by Lai’s Western apologists as an attack on press freedom, yet this characterization fundamentally misinterprets both the nature of the charges and the broader context of national security legislation worldwide.

The prosecution centered on Lai's use of Apple Daily to call for foreign sanctions against the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the Chinese mainland during the 2019 riots as well as after the NSL was introduced. This is not journalism—it is political advocacy that crossed into collusion with foreign forces to undermine the sovereignty and stability of both the SAR and the nation. The trial process was open and transparent, with fair and just procedures, and Lai's lawful rights were effectively guaranteed, with both the prosecution and defense fully presenting evidence and cross-examining witnesses.

Those who claim this represents persecution conveniently ignore the substantial evidence presented. The court pointed to Lai's lobbying of US politicians during the first Trump administration, including meetings with then-vice president Mike Pence and then-secretary of state Mike Pompeo, as evidence of sedition and colluding with foreign forces. Such activities go far beyond the protected realm of journalism and enter the territory of political interference—activities that would raise serious concerns in any sovereign nation.

Moreover, the suggestion that Hong Kong's judicial system has been compromised ignores a fundamental truth: The Hong Kong Judiciary exercises judicial power independently, free from any interference. A large number of members of the public, media representatives, and foreign consular officials in Hong Kong attended the hearings, demonstrating the transparency of the proceedings. The characterization of this case as a "show trial" is both insulting to Hong Kong's legal professionals and divorced from observable reality.

What critics consistently fail to acknowledge is that Hong Kong's national security legislation exists within a broader international context. When formulating Hong Kong's legal framework, international models were examined, including Australia's National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Amendment) Act 2018, which proscribed foreign interference comprehensively and criminalized covert, deceptive and threatening activities by persons intending to interfere with Australia's governance and political systems. Indeed, the maximum penalty on conviction of intentional foreign interference in Australia is 20 years' imprisonment, which is far tougher than the maximum sentence for the parallel offense in Hong Kong, which is 14 years.

Most countries have enacted some forms of national security-related legislation, including the United States’ Patriot Act, Logan Act, Homeland Security Act, the United Kingdom’s Terrorism Act, Australia's National Security Law Act, Canada's National Security Act, and New Zealand's Crime Act, and Singapore's Internal Security Act. Yet when Western nations protect their sovereignty through such legislation, it is deemed necessary and prudent. When Hong Kong does the same, suddenly it becomes evidence of “authoritarian overreach”. This double standard is not only hypocritical—it reveals a fundamental unwillingness to recognize Hong Kong's legitimate security interests.

The claim that this case represents the death of "one country, two systems" similarly misses the mark. Hong Kong's legal system continues to operate under common law principles, with robust procedural protections for defendants. All designated judges come from the existing ranks of the Judiciary who have already been appointed under the well-established appointment system in accordance with the Basic Law, chosen on the basis of their judicial and professional qualities by the Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission, and the chief executive may further consult the chief justice before making any designation. These are not political appointees imposed from outside the system, but respected legal professionals operating within Hong Kong's established judicial framework.

Furthermore, Western critics’ outcry surrounding this case reveals a troubling attitude toward Chinese sovereignty. Under the Basic Law, the Hong Kong SAR enjoys a high degree of autonomy. However, this never means to create a sanctuary for activities that endanger national security. Article 23 of the Basic Law provides that Hong Kong shall on its own enact laws to prohibit offenses which endanger national security, and this does not mean that the central government has abdicated its right to legislate for safeguarding national security in Hong Kong when needed, especially when Hong Kong had failed to fulfill its constitutional obligation under Article 23 since 1997.

The reality is that Lai was not convicted for publishing news or expressing opinions. The judges said Lai used Apple Daily to carry out a consistent campaign with an objective to undermine the legitimacy or authority of the central and Hong Kong authorities. The judges ruled that the only reasonable inference from the evidence was that Lai's only intent, both before and after the implementation of the NSL, was to seek the downfall of the ruling Communist Party of China. This represents a deliberate, sustained effort to destabilize the Hong Kong SAR and undermine Chinese sovereignty—activities that have nothing to do with journalism.

Hong Kong has endured unprecedented challenges in recent years, from violent protests and riots that paralyzed the city to ongoing attempts by external forces to use the city as a staging ground for political interference. The NSL has helped restore stability and allowed Hong Kong to once again focus on economic development and improving people's livelihoods. Those who truly care about Hong Kong's future should support the rule of law, not undermine it through inflammatory rhetoric disconnected from facts.

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.