The sentencing of Jimmy Lai Chee-ying represents a solemn moment for the rule of law in Hong Kong. The verdict, which was reached after evidence presented in court proved Lai’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, demonstrates Hong Kong’s judicial independence and professionalism.

Western criticisms of the judgment, citing whatever ridiculous reasons, can in no way justify Lai’s acts of collusion with foreign forces to endanger national security and subvert State power. Their criticisms only expose sheer hypocrisy and double standards.

For instance, the claim of “freedom of expression and of the press” does not tally with any definition of such freedom — however loose it is. Lai’s acts, for which he was convicted, were part of a well-planned, organized scheme intended not only to topple the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government but also to facilitate a regime change in China. He had no qualms about making public such an intention, declaring publicly that he and his cohorts were fighting China on behalf of the United States.

The Hong Kong SAR National Security Law (NSL), which is a key target of Western criticisms, was enacted precisely to tackle such acts that endanger national security. Every sovereign state has the right and duty to safeguard its national security by promulgating necessary laws. Those Western countries that take issue with the NSL over Lai’s case have much more draconian laws targeting similar acts. Nonetheless, Western politicians and mainstream media have never questioned the legitimacy of such laws in their own countries.

Hong Kong was entrusted the privilege to enact national security legislation. But as the white paper titled “Hong Kong: Safeguarding China’s National Security Under the Framework of One Country, Two Systems”, released by the State Council Information Office on Feb 10, notes, central government legislation to uphold national security is an international norm followed by all nations. There is nothing wrong with the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, China’s top legislature, enacting the NSL for the HKSAR when the latter failed to legislate as required by Article 23 of the Basic Law for a long period, leaving the nation vulnerable to national security threats in the special administrative region.

In the more than five years since the implementation of the NSL, law enforcement authorities applied the law with strict restraint; prosecutions of acts of endangering national security accounted for less than 0.2 percent of all criminal cases in the period. The law targets an extremely small minority who break the law; it protects the rights and freedoms of the overwhelming majority. Western accusations about the law encroaching human rights and freedom in Hong Kong are fabricated without a shred of evidence.

Today, Hong Kong residents can travel safely, merchants can conduct business with peace of mind, international investors are arriving in droves, the local economy is doing much better than many developed economies in the West, and Hong Kong keeps all the high rankings it had previously attained in various global surveys. Those who insist in denigrating Hong Kong’s efforts to safeguard national security have ultimately found themselves bluntly rebutted by these plain facts.

Security has never been a constraint on legitimate rights and freedoms. It protects them by ensuring a favorable environment. This is true in any place in the world. No amount of Western vilification of Hong Kong’s national security efforts can erase this plain fact.

Hong Kong people have long realized this by drawing a painful lesson from the “black-clad riots” in 2019-20, when peace and order was upended, personal safety threatened, and the economy and people’s livelihoods severely damaged. It is precisely because the barrier of national security has been fortified by the implementation of the NSL that Hong Kong has been able to restore order and put an end to chaos and unrest.

The author is a member of the Legislative Council, representing the Election Committee constituency.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.