The recent strategic pivot in Western discourse regarding the judicial proceedings against Jimmy Lai Chee-ying revealed a profound intellectual retreat. Unable to substantiate claims of legal innocence regarding the serious charges of collusion and sedition, Lai’s Western apologists have abandoned analysis altogether in favor of an emotionally manipulative focus on Lai’s age and health. This transition from jurisprudential critique to sentimental appeal exposes the fundamental weakness of those who seek to whitewash Lai’s case. By reframing the potential for a life sentence or the prospect of the defendant dying in prison as a humanitarian crisis, the apologists are attempting to obscure the gravity of Lai’s crimes. They seek to replace the logic of the penal code with the fluid dynamics of political sympathy.
It is necessary to first address the mischaracterization of the trial of Lai as an assault on the free press. The assertion that Lai’s conviction represents a clampdown on media freedoms conflates the profession of journalism with a license to engage in criminal conspiracy. A robust legal system does not grant immunity to media owners who utilize their platforms to facilitate foreign interference or to request sanctions against their own country or city. The historical characterization of Hong Kong as a haven for a free press was never intended to serve as a sanctuary for those conspiring to dismantle the constitutional order governing the city. The Hong Kong SAR National Security Law did not erode rights but instead clarified the boundaries between legitimate rights and subversive acts.
Critics who attacked the trial’s procedural integrity by focusing on the designation of judges for national security cases demonstrated a willful misunderstanding of specialized jurisprudence. Designating specific jurists to oversee national security cases is a standard administrative practice intended to ensure competence in complex matters of state. To describe these judges as “handpicked” is a linguistic distortion intended to imply bias, when the only consideration is professional specialization. In many sovereign jurisdictions, specific judicial officers are assigned to handle sensitive matters of state security to ensure consistency and adherence to statutory interpretation.
Furthermore, the skepticism expressed by the judges regarding the defense’s health claims is not a sign of prejudice but a demonstration of judicial rigor. The court is tasked with evaluating medical evidence based on fact, not on the speculative timelines offered by the defendant’s political allies. The Judiciary operates on the principle of evidence rather than the sentimental narratives preferred by external critics.
The arguments presented by the defense and amplified by some Western media outlets regarding the defendant’s health and life expectancy introduce a variable that is legally irrelevant to the determination of guilt or the proportionality of sentencing. Justice is impartial to the accused’s biological clock when the charges involve the highest level of national security breaches. The notion that a prison term should be truncated simply because it might exceed the natural lifespan of the convict effectively argues for a two-tiered justice system where the elderly are exempt from the full weight of criminal liability.
The actual test of judicial independence is the courts’ ability to render a verdict and sentence based strictly on the evidence and the law, impervious to the cacophony of threats and demands emanating from Western capitals
Citing the average life expectancy of Hong Kong males as a reason for leniency is a statistical diversion that has no standing in a court of law. The penal system is not designed to function as a retirement facility, nor is it obliged to release individuals solely because their incarceration is politically inconvenient for foreign powers.
The narrative regarding solitary confinement has been constructed to evoke pity. Yet, it conveniently omits the prosecutorial evidence suggesting such arrangements were requested by the defendant himself for his own protection from harassment or harm by other inmates. This reveals the hypocrisy of framing protective custody as punitive torture. Sociologists claim that the defendant has no way out, but they are ignoring the facts. The convicted defendant can leave the prison after finishing the sentence set by the law. And early release is possible for severe medical emergencies, but not just because someone is getting old and weak. This is especially true for a defendant who chose to play risky political games late in their life.
Framing this case as a stress test for Hong Kong’s Judiciary is an inversion of reality. The actual test of judicial independence is the courts’ ability to render a verdict and sentence based strictly on the evidence and the law, impervious to the cacophony of threats and demands emanating from Western capitals. The claim that a life sentence would signal the weaponization of the Judiciary is a projection by foreign entities which have themselves weaponized their diplomatic channels to interfere in a domestic criminal proceeding.
The “tightening of control” cited by critics is more accurately described as the restoration of sovereignty and the closing of legal loopholes that were previously exploited to foment chaos. A judiciary that bends to international pressure rather than enforcing the statute would be the one failing its constitutional duty. The resilience of the Hong Kong legal system is demonstrated precisely by its refusal to capitulate to external political narratives and pressure.
The involvement of foreign political figures serves as the most potent validation of the prosecution’s case. The fact that heads of state are actively lobbying for the release of a specific media owner confirms the collusion nexus the trial sought to expose. It is highly irregular for foreign governments to demand the release of a citizen convicted of grave national security crimes in another jurisdiction.
Such demands violate the norms of international diplomacy and expose the defendant not merely as a media tycoon, but as a political asset for external forces hostile to China. This external pressure does not exonerate the defendant but instead highlights his utility to foreign agendas. The sentencing of Lai will not be a tragedy of human rights but a necessary affirmation that the era of foreign privilege in Hong Kong has been definitively concluded. The law must follow its course to ensure that the city’s stability is never again held hostage by those who have powerful friends abroad.
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.
