Dominic Lee says evidence suggests that Lai has crossed the line from journalism to subversion, from criticism to conspiracy, and from protected speech to criminal conduct

Before and after the verdict in the national security case against former media tycoon Jimmy Lai Chee-ying was delivered on Monday morning, a familiar chorus of criticism had emerged from certain Western quarters, painting the legal proceedings as “persecution” rather than prosecution.

Yet, a careful examination of the evidence presented over more than 150 days of testimony reveals not a story of oppression, but rather a textbook case of how democratic societies protect themselves from those who would exploit freedom to undermine sovereignty itself.

The charges against the 78-year-old founder of the now-defunct Apple Daily are neither trivial nor unprecedented in free societies -- conspiracy to collude with foreign forces and conspiracy to publish seditious materials. What makes this case extraordinary is not the nature of the charges, but rather the brazenness with which the alleged conduct was carried out and the international support network that enabled it. The evidence laid bare in Hong Kong’s courts tells a disturbing story of systematic efforts to invite foreign intervention against one’s own government -- actions that would be prosecuted with equal vigor in Washington, London or Canberra.

Consider the facts that have emerged during trial. Lai maintained close relationships with an array of senior American officials that reads like a who’s who in the United States’ national security establishment. In 2019, he met with then vice-president Mike Pence, then secretary of state Mike Pompeo, and then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, explicitly requesting that Washington impose sanctions on China as a whole and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in particular. These were not casual conversations or journalistic interviews – they were calculated lobbying efforts designed to weaponize US foreign policy against his home city.

The financial trail proves equally revealing. Between 2013 and 2017, Lai paid HK$1.76 million (U$225,000) to Paul Wolfowitz, former US Deputy Secretary of Defense – a sum the prosecution argues was intended to influence US policy toward China. Lai himself funded trips totaling HK$14.9 million for Wolfowitz and retired vice-chief of staff of the US Army Jack Keane to visit Taiwan four times, where they met with the island’s then-leader, Tsai Ing-wen. These were not scholarly exchanges but strategic interventions that emboldened separatist sentiments.

Most damning, perhaps, is Jimmy Lai’s role in the Stand with Hong Kong (SWHK) organization and its international lobbying efforts. He advanced HK$5 million for a “G20 Global Advertisement Plan” and suggested funding 10,000 pounds ($13,368) to develop individuals as “political stars” capable of rallying international opposition to Beijing. Text messages presented in court show Lai directing his newsroom to abandon journalistic balance entirely, instructing editors to present only the “yellow camp” perspective associated with anti-government movements. This is not press freedom. It is anti-establishment political propaganda masquerading as journalism.

Yet, despite this mountain of evidence, Western critics persist in several key mischaracterizations that demand correction. The most persistent myth is that Lai has been “imprisoned without trial”. This fundamentally misrepresents reality: Lai is currently serving a five-year and nine-month sentence handed down in December 2022 for fraud convictions entirely separate from the national security charges. He is not being held “pre-trial” but is already a convicted criminal serving time for established offenses.

Equally misleading are claims about his health and treatment. Lai’s own lawyers confirmed in court that their client has been receiving appropriate medical care, with daily visits by healthcare professionals and cardiac monitoring. Far from the frail figure portrayed in some Western media outlets, Lai appeared vigorous and articulate during his own testimony -- hardly consistent with narratives of “mistreatment”. His initial decision not to receive communion was his own choice, later reversed, yet this personal decision was cynically spun into allegations of religious “persecution”.

The complaint about “solitary confinement” similarly collapses under scrutiny. The HKSAR government has repeatedly clarified that Lai’s separate detention arrangements were implemented at his own request and in consideration of various factors, including his safety. This is standard practice in correctional facilities worldwide when housing high-profile inmates, not evidence of vindictive punishment.

Critics also point to the trial’s length as evidence of unfairness, conveniently ignoring that much of the delay stemmed from defense tactics. Lai’s legal team launched multiple challenges -- disputes over legal privilege and journalistic materials, judicial reviews regarding the hiring of British barrister Tim Owen, arguments about statute of limitations on sedition charges -- each adding months to the proceedings. This is not “persecution” – it’s the defense exercising every legal avenue available, something that actually demonstrates the robustness of Hong Kong’s legal system.

The absence of a jury has been seized upon as proof of a “show trial”, yet this too misrepresents both law and logic. The SAR’s secretary for justice’s decision to proceed without a jury was based on legitimate concerns about the case's foreign elements and the safety of jurors and their families -- concerns validated by the very Western pressure campaign now being waged. Ireland, Britain, New Zealand and Greece all permit non-jury trials in specific circumstances. When American courts tried foreign agents during the Cold War, similar protective measures were considered routinely, not authoritarian.

What truly reveals the double standard at play is imagining these same facts in reverse. Would Washington tolerate a wealthy US media mogul meeting with Chinese officials to request sanctions against Washington? Would London accept a British publisher funding foreign military figures to influence United Kingdom policy? Would any Western democracy permit its citizens to coordinate with foreign intelligence and defense establishments to undermine their own government's authority? The very suggestion is absurd, yet this is precisely what the evidence suggests Lai did -- and what some Western voices now defend as “press freedom”.

The timing of US President Donald Trump’s promise to “100 percent” secure Lai’s release exposes the nakedness of such foreign interference. His casual assertion that getting Lai out would be “easy” through trade negotiations reduces Hong Kong’s independent judiciary to a bargaining chip. Beijing's sharp rebuke of such meddling is not authoritarian overreach but a defense of sovereignty that any self-respecting nation would mount. One struggles to imagine Chinese officials publicly promising to extract American defendants from US courts without triggering bipartisan outrage in Washington.

Throughout the 150-plus days of testimony, the three judges -- Justices Esther Toh Lye-ping, Susana D'Almada Remedios and Alex Lee Wan-tang -- have demonstrated the careful deliberation expected of common law jurists. Their probing questions about the distinction between legitimate criticism and seditious intent, their meticulous examination of editorial decisions at Apple Daily, and their accommodation of defense requests all testify to a legal process functioning exactly as it should.

The verdict on Lai’s national security case demonstrates that the Hong Kong SAR can maintain both openness and the nation’s sovereignty, that press freedom does not include the right to conspire with foreign powers, and that wealth and foreign connections do not place some above the law. The evidence suggests that Lai has crossed the line from journalism to subversion, from criticism to conspiracy, from protected speech to criminal conduct.

Six of Lai’s co-defendants -- senior figures at Apple Daily, including Chief Executive Cheung Kim-hung and chief editor Ryan Law -- have already pleaded guilty to collusion charges, as have his former “assistants” Mark Simon and Chan Tsz-wah, a former member of SWHK. Their admissions have bolstered the prosecution’s case and undercut narratives that these charges are baseless persecution. People do not plead guilty to fabricated offenses when facing life imprisonment.

Western critics would do well to respect Hong Kong’s judicial process rather than attempt to prejudge or interfere with it. The careful presentation of evidence, the opportunity for the defense to challenge every assertion, and the judges’ thoughtful deliberation represent the rule of law in action. Those who genuinely care about legal integrity should support this process, not seek to subvert it through political pressure and coordinated media campaigns.

The verdict has made it clear that no individual, regardless of wealth, international connections, or self-proclaimed righteousness, is above the law. In a world where accountability for the powerful grows increasingly rare, that alone is worth defending.

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.