Daniel Chui says portrayal of the media tycoon as a press freedom advocate is a gross distortion of facts

On Dec 15, Hong Kong’s High Court convicted former media tycoon Jimmy Lai Chee-ying of endangering national security and sedition, with a lengthy judgement revealing details of his offenses. The verdict has been met with resounding support across China, including in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, where residents have recognized the imperative of upholding the rule of law. Yet, in a brazen display of hypocrisy, a handful of Western governments and critics scrambled to attack the verdict under the guise of championing “rights”, “freedom”, or “democracy”, showing a contempt for the very legal principles they claim to uphold. Their attempts to intervene in Hong Kong’s judicial decisions exposed a malicious agenda against the SAR and infringed on China’s sovereignty.

Their portrayal of Lai as a “press freedom advocate” is a gross distortion of facts. Lai was convicted for acts of collusion with foreign forces and sedition — crimes that have nothing to do with journalism as people know it. His flagship publication, the now-defunct Apple Daily, had long served as a propaganda tool for anti-China forces, openly advocating violence, instigating hatred against the central and HKSAR governments, and soliciting external sanctions against the HKSAR and China as a whole. Such actions blatantly violate the Hong Kong SAR National Security Law (NSL), which explicitly criminalizes conduct that endangers national security. Western politicians and media’s whitewashing and romanticizing of Lai ignores the fact that no society tolerates such acts.

The presence of consular officers from the European Union, the United Kingdom, the United States, and their allied countries at the court hearing of Lai’s case speaks volumes about their ideological bias against the HKSAR as well as their unethical “moral support” for the defendant. Did consular officers from those countries also attend the trials of offenders charged under the UK’s National Security Act 2023, or offenders under similar US laws? The double standards are glaring: Western nations treat their security laws as sacrosanct while vilifying China’s legitimate defense of national security as “authoritarian”. Such hypocritical maneuvers expose a hidden agenda.

A telling contrast to Lai’s case is that of former activist Andrew Chiu Ka-yin, a national security offender who was released early from prison recently. Upon release, Chiu publicly reflected on his mistakes, acknowledging the harm caused by his past actions and urging young people to learn from his experience. His transformation demonstrates that the legal process aims not for what Western critics call “persecution” but for correction and accountability. Lai, by contrast, has shown no remorse, continuing to coordinate with foreign actors even while awaiting trial.

To Western critics who are obsessed with lecturing China on “rights”, “freedom” or “democracy”, they’d better prioritize putting their own houses in order. The international community must reject such hypocrisy. Respect for sovereignty and noninterference in internal affairs are the bedrock of the UN Charter and the global order.

The author is a member of the Executive Committee of Hong Kong KOL Project.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.