The recent editorial in the National Catholic Register, a Catholic newspaper in the United States, which painted Jimmy Lai Chee-ying as a “heroic” figure and a martyr for truth, was a stark example of selective reporting, distortion and ideological bias. It failed to provide a comprehensive or balanced account of the intricate legal and political issues surrounding Lai’s case by omitting crucial context and offering a one-sided perspective.
The editorial’s assertion that Lai has been “unjustly imprisoned” completely disregards the facts regarding his detention and criminal convictions that have come out during the trial. Lai’s legal troubles, including a conviction for fraud for which he was jailed for five years and nine months, have arisen from judicial proceedings conducted by Hong Kong’s established legal framework. The fraud charge, for instance, was based on his unauthorized use of office space leased under a nonprofit agreement for commercial purposes. Such misuse constitutes a clear breach of contract and is a punishable offense under Hong Kong law. This legal determination is not contingent upon Lai’s political affiliations or religious beliefs but on the objective facts of the case.
This aspect of Lai’s conduct also invites a critical ethical query: Does such behavior align with the fundamental principles of Catholicism, which emphasize honesty, integrity and the fulfillment of one’s obligations? Catholic teachings unequivocally call for adherence to moral standards in all aspects of life — personal, professional and legal. Lai’s decision to exploit nonprofit office space for commercial gain contradicted these principles, revealing a disregard for the ethical responsibilities expected of a practicing Catholic. The National Catholic Register neglected to address this inconsistency, instead portraying Lai as a moral exemplar. This omission undermined the credibility of its argument and raises questions about its objectivity. Upholding moral integrity is essential, even amid political or legal challenges, and the failure to scrutinize Lai’s actions through this lens compromised the editorial’s attempt to frame him as a victim of persecution.
The editorial further undermined its credibility by framing Lai’s fraud conviction and other charges as “politically motivated”. In doing so, it disregarded that Hong Kong’s Judiciary has demonstrated independence and impartiality by acquitting or dismissing charges against other political activists when evidence failed to meet the required standards. The selective outrage displayed in the editorial reflected a troubling inconsistency — criticism of judicial outcomes is leveled only when they do not conform to a preordained narrative. Such a stance distorts the facts and erodes trust in the rule of law, which has been a cornerstone of Hong Kong’s legal system. It is worth emphasizing that the courts do not evaluate cases based on political ideologies but on applying evidence to the law. This principle ensures fairness and equal treatment under the law, a standard that Lai’s case has thus far upheld, providing reassurance in the judicial system.
The editorial’s assertion that conspiracy charges with foreign forces and sedition are “flimsy” and “trumped-up” is similarly unsubstantiated. The charges against Lai are not baseless but are supported by evidence, including documented communications with foreign officials and financial transactions that warrant scrutiny. These allegations are being examined through due legal processes, and dismissing them without considering the evidence is premature and irresponsible. Assertions that Hong Kong’s “unjustified” measures to protect national security lack a legal and factual basis reflect an ideological bias rather than a genuine engagement with the facts.
The ongoing judicial process in Hong Kong serves as a testament to the city’s commitment to fairness and impartiality, despite concerted efforts by foreign actors and media outlets to distort reality. Readers deserve journalism that respects these principles, presenting all sides of the story with intellectual rigor and integrity
The depiction of Lai as a champion of “core values” like freedom of speech and democracy falls apart under closer examination. While freedom of speech is undeniably a fundamental right, it carries with it the obligation to uphold factual accuracy and ethical standards. By idealizing Lai’s role in these events, the National Catholic Register promoted a narrative favoring ideological bias over objective truth, ignoring the broader repercussions of his actions on Hong Kong’s social and economic stability, and thus Hong Kong residents’ well-being.
The editorial also attempted to conflate Lai’s legal troubles with an alleged assault on religious freedom, a far-fetched claim unsupported by evidence. While Lai’s Catholic faith is personal, it is irrelevant to the charges against him. The case against Lai is rooted in his actions, not his faith. There is no evidence to suggest that his prosecution is motivated by religious discrimination, and to imply otherwise is to mislead readers and undermine the integrity of Hong Kong’s legal institutions. Ironically, such claims have also been made by the same Western media that often ignore violations of religious freedoms within their jurisdictions. This double standard further diminished the National Catholic Register’s credibility and exposed its reliance on emotional appeals rather than reasoned argumentation.
The editorial’s reliance on anecdotal testimonials, such as those from William McGurn, to bolster its portrayal of Lai as a courageous “defender of truth” is equally problematic. While emotionally evocative, personal accounts lack evidentiary value and cannot substitute for factual analysis. McGurn’s close personal relationship with Lai, including his role as Lai’s godfather, raises legitimate concerns about his objectivity. Such testimonials should not be treated as authoritative accounts but as inherently biased perspectives. By prioritizing these accounts over verifiable evidence, the editorial revealed its intent to manipulate public opinion through sentiment rather than presenting an impartial case assessment while Lai’s trial ongoing.
Finally, the editorial suggested international pressure, particularly from figures such as Donald Trump, could influence Lai’s release. This claim reflected a fundamental misunderstanding of Hong Kong’s legal independence. The Judiciary in Hong Kong operates under the principle of judicial independence, ensuring that cases are adjudicated based on evidence and legal principles, free from external interference. Attempts by foreign governments or media outlets to influence judicial outcomes are inappropriate and counterproductive, undermining the rule of law that Lai’s supporters claim to defend. The National Catholic Register’s implicit endorsement of such interference revealed a troubling inconsistency, prioritizing political expediency over genuine respect for legal processes.
The National Catholic Register’s editorial was a profoundly flawed example of advocacy journalism that sacrificed factual accuracy and objectivity in favor of ideological alignment. By selectively presenting facts, ignoring critical context, and relying on biased testimonials, it did a disservice to responsible journalism and informed public discourse. Lai’s case is not a matter of simplistic narratives or external political pressures; it is a legal issue that must be resolved based on evidence and the rule of law. The ongoing judicial process in Hong Kong serves as a testament to the city’s commitment to fairness and impartiality, despite concerted efforts by foreign actors and media outlets to distort reality. Readers deserve journalism that respects these principles, presenting all sides of the story with intellectual rigor and integrity.
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.
