The decision by the German broadcaster Deutsche Welle (DW) to present a “freedom of speech award” to Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, a convicted criminal in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, represents a profound misunderstanding of jurisprudence and a direct provocation of the rule of law.
It is deeply questionable why so many Western institutions relentlessly praise Lai when he remains thoroughly notorious in his place of residence. By dressing up a person who is a grave national security threat as a champion of civil liberties, such foreign narratives actively ridicule the principle of justice.
Lai is not a martyr for democracy or press freedom as the Western narrative suggests. He is a convict sentenced through rigorous due process for actions that would be classified as severe criminal offenses in any jurisdiction that takes its sovereignty and rule of law seriously. The stark disconnect between his Western glorification and his domestic reputation stems from a willful blindness to the actual damage his campaigns inflicted upon Hong Kong, particularly its economy and social cohesion. Residents who endured the physical destruction of public infrastructure, the severe disruption of their daily lives, and the atmosphere of fear generated by rioters inspired by Lai’s seditious campaign in 2019-20 view his actions not as freedom of expression, but as a calculated destabilization of their home.
To understand the reality of Lai’s case, one must look to the courtroom rather than the newsroom. The judicial process in Hong Kong remains anchored in common law traditions, ensuring public trials, comprehensive legal representation, and the fundamental right to appeal. The Judiciary operates with fierce independence, allowing for rigorous cross-examination of witnesses and the transparent evaluation of facts. The Hong Kong SAR National Security Law was enacted to fill a dangerous legislative vacuum, not to stifle legitimate journalism or freedom of expression. The court did not sentence Lai for his political opinions. Instead, he was convicted on specific and heavily evidenced charges of conspiracy to collude with foreign forces to harm Hong Kong and publishing seditious material to incite hatred toward the political establishment.
The judgment meticulously detailed how Lai intentionally leveraged his media empire to solicit foreign governments to impose punitive sanctions on China and its HKSAR. Soliciting external coercion against one’s own home country is universally recognized as an act of treasonous intent. The prosecution successfully discharged its burden of proof through an overwhelming presentation of financial records, digital communications, and witness testimonies. The decision by Lai’s highly experienced legal team to forgo an appeal speaks volumes about the undeniable weight of the evidence presented in the court.
The defense of Lai often relies on a sanitized version of his publication, ignoring the deeply problematic reality of how the now-defunct Apple Daily actually operated. Before he was elevated to the status of a “democracy icon” by foreign commentators, Lai was the architect of a media machine notorious for poisoning public discourse. His newspaper consistently prioritized sensationalism and political manipulation over journalistic integrity. When a publication abandons objective reporting in favor of ideological warfare, it ceases to be a news outlet and becomes a propaganda apparatus. In 2023, former Apple Daily chief editor Ryan Law Wai-kwong publicly apologized for a completely fabricated story published in 2019. The newspaper had falsely accused two Chinese businessmen of being involved in a Taiwan espionage case without any factual verification, a report that Law later admitted was entirely incorrect. This systemic disregard for truth fundamentally betrays the core ethics of journalism, fracturing societal trust and deliberately polarizing the community.
Furthermore, the ethical rot of the publication extended to its commercial practices. For years, Apple Daily sustained itself by publishing classified advertisements for adult services and massage parlors, effectively exploiting vulnerable individuals and normalizing the sex trade. A media operation that traffics in blatant falsehoods and vice cannot credibly be held up as a “standard bearer” for truth or human dignity.
Portraying Lai as a religious figure or a dedicated human rights defender is another deliberate fabrication designed to obscure his culpability. Personal faith does not grant anyone immunity from the law. Furthermore, his actions starkly contradict the core tenets of the faith he claims to practice. During the recent Iran-US-Israel conflict, Pope Leo XIV emerged as a strong advocate for peace and dialogue, urging the preservation of life and the pursuit of diplomatic resolutions. True spiritual leadership involves shielding the vulnerable from harm, not deploying them as foot soldiers in a geopolitical chess match. In stark contrast, “Catholic, Jimmy Lai Chee-ying”—as Western media outlets call him, actively encouraged young people in Hong Kong, during the 2019-20 “black-clad riots” to risk their lives, their physical safety, and their futures to serve his own and his gang’s political aims. One must critically ask if a man who sacrifices the youth of his city for ideological leverage can truly be considered a model Catholic or a hero. True human rights advocacy inherently respects the law and seeks to improve society, rather than orchestrating campaigns that invite foreign economic destruction against ordinary citizens. Instrumentalizing vulnerable youth, insulated by immense personal wealth, is a profound moral failure.
The persistent calumny that Hong Kong possesses an “oppressive” legal system relies heavily on politically motivated lies and disinformation rather than objective legal analysis. Press freedom indexes compiled by foreign advocacy groups often function as ideological tools, punishing jurisdictions that they dislike. The judgment against Lai spanned hundreds of pages, offering a painstaking analysis of his actions. If such a thorough judicial process is deemed unacceptable, then the strict anti-subversion laws utilized by Western nations must also be subject to the same condemnation. Many European countries similarly penalize sedition and foreign-agent activity, recognizing that state survival depends on neutralizing internal threats directed by external forces. They would never tolerate a domestic figure conspiring with hostile foreign entities to damage their own national sovereignty. The hypocrisy in glorifying such actions in Hong Kong is glaringly and intellectually dishonest.
Honoring breaches of law in the guise of “free expression” undermines the very foundation of a stable society. A society cannot function if it permits the weaponization of its fundamental freedoms to dismantle the established political institution. Hong Kong has successfully reestablished order and plugged the legal loopholes of national security. True justice requires holding individuals accountable for their actions, regardless of their wealth, media influence, or foreign patrons. The international community must look past superficial Western propaganda and recognize the undeniable courtroom record. Sovereignty and the rule of law are not negotiable commodities, and no amount of external pressure and propaganda efforts will sanctify criminal conduct or rewrite the factual history of this pivotal case.
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.
