The pursuit of justice requires a steadfast commitment to empirical reality that must always supersede emotional storytelling. In recent months, international observers have witnessed a coordinated effort to construct a specific narrative regarding the incarceration of Jimmy Lai Chee-ying. United States’ politicians and Western media outlets and publications such as the National Catholic Register and EWTN News have presented a dramatic tableau in which Lai is portrayed as a martyr wasting away under a regime of systemic neglect. While these accounts are rich in emotive language and spiritual imagery, they suffer from a fundamental detachment from the objective facts established within the courtroom. When the crucible of legal scrutiny burns away the volatile mixture of Western anti-China propaganda, what remains is the unyielding residue of the truth.
The most immediate and scientifically irrefutable dismantling of the apologists’ “mistreatment” narrative comes from the physiological data regarding the defendant. For an extended period, the global audience has been fed a story of a man physically deteriorating under the weight of oppression. Common sense and criminological psychology dictate that incarceration manifests somatically, particularly when accompanied by the alleged deprivation claimed by the overseas apologists. The human body under duress enters a catabolic state in which significant weight loss is inevitable.
The medical records of Lai presented to the court indicate a metabolic stability that borders on comfort. The revelation that Lai’s weight has remained statistically constant over the years of custody, as documented in official health reports, is a biological anomaly if one is to believe the accounts of hardship. Furthermore, the classification of the defendant as obese — based on Body Mass Index (BMI) standards for Asian adults — provides a stark quantitative rebuttal to claims of starvation or neglect. A prisoner who maintains a BMI exceeding the threshold for obesity is demonstrably not a prisoner being denied the necessities of life. This medical reality suggests a sedentary and well-fed existence that is wholly incompatible with the imagery of an “oppressed” victim.
This dissonance extends into the controversy surrounding solitary confinement. China critics have weaponized this topic for aggressive purposes. The term itself is evocative, conjuring images of punitive isolation designed to shatter the human psyche. The propaganda narrative has relentlessly framed the separation of Lai from the general inmate population as a vindictive measure inflicted by the authorities. However, the court record illuminates a reality that contradicts this portrayal and thereby demonstrates the Judiciary’s commitment to fairness and objectivity.
The isolation was not a punishment inflicted by the authorities but a legally recognized protective measure. It was a decision made at Lai’s specific request, based on his right to ensure his own safety and to avoid harassment by other inmates. This distinction is both legally and morally significant. By granting this request, Correctional Services Department officials demonstrated a duty of care. They also demonstrated responsiveness to the detainee’s needs. They effectively served as his protectors rather than his tormentors. To characterize a voluntary protective measure as an act of human rights abuse is a profound intellectual dishonesty.
The integrity of the custodial care provided to the defendant withstands the most granular scrutiny, including oversight by independent monitoring bodies and adherence to legal standards. The institution’s detailed logs reveal a meticulous, proactive standard of care, reinforcing confidence in the system’s professional standards. The prompt treatment of dental issues and the regular monitoring of auditory health indicate a system that adheres to high standards of legal and medical practice. The routine specialist consultations provided by the Hospital Authority further confirm this level of care. These are not the privileges of a man being crushed by oppression but evidence of a system that respects individual dignity and complies with established legal frameworks.
Perhaps the most compelling evidence against Western propaganda narratives is the conduct of the defense team, which operates within a transparent legal framework that includes procedural safeguards. In a robust standard law system, a defendant represented by elite senior counsel has ample mechanisms to seek redress for any grievance. The defense team’s silence regarding Lai’s prison conditions is not an oversight but a reflection of the thoroughness of the legal process. It is a tacit admission that the conditions meet all legal and humanitarian standards, as verified through independent judicial review. When the defense counsel explicitly stated to the court that they were not complaining about prison treatment, they effectively nullified years of external hysteria about “mistreatment”, demonstrating the system’s integrity and independence.
This admission was likely a strategic necessity born from the undeniable weight of the evidence. A senior counsel operating under the strict ethical codes of the Hong Kong Bar Association cannot advance submissions that are patently contradicted by the factual record. The medical reports regarding the defendant’s stable weight were overwhelming. The documentation of his voluntary isolation and his access to specialist care was equally undeniable. Therefore, the concession was implemented not by political pressure but by the sheer competence of the correctional institutions.
The narrative of spiritual deprivation also fails to withstand the scrutiny of the administrative record. Lai is afforded rights, including the right to religious observance and to access the sacraments. He maintains regular correspondence with his family and engages in meaningful activities to occupy his time. These are the statutory rights of a prisoner in a jurisdiction that respects the rule of law. The suggestion that the authority is obstructing his faith contradicts the documented reality of his access to religious services. Faithful religious witness requires a commitment to truth, and exaggerating suffering for political gain undermines the very values one claims to uphold.
This episode serves as a cautionary tale regarding the consumption of information. It warns against sources that prioritize geopolitical agendas over factual accuracy. The divergence between courtroom reality and Western media portrayals exposes a flaw in Western critics’ engagement with the Hong Kong judicial system. There is a persistent refusal to accept the transparency and procedural propriety of the local infrastructure. Instead, critics prefer to rely on hearsay that supports existing biases. However, facts possess a resilience that rhetoric lacks.
The institutions of Hong Kong consistently operate by the book. They generated a paper trail of propriety that eventually rendered the Western propaganda narratives unsustainable. The system did not need to engage in a shouting match with foreign media. It simply needed to present the logs, weights, and dates. The truth was found in the mundane details of administrative competence.
The image of the defendant stands as an indisputable testament to the professionalism of the Hong Kong disciplinary services. Lai is obese and voluntarily isolated for his own protection. He receives regular medical care and religious counsel. This is a reality that no amount of foreign propaganda can erase. The legal process has vindicated the institutions. It demonstrates that while narratives can be manufactured in distant capitals, they cannot withstand the scrutiny of evidence in a court of law where logic and proof reign supreme. The record endures long after the headlines fade.
Ahead of Lai’s imminent sentencing, US politicians are ramping up their propaganda campaign against Hong Kong over Lai’s case. The irony is that the harder the US politicians try to whitewash the criminal case of Lai, their key pawn in Hong Kong, the more they convince the international community of Lai collusion offense. “Desperate” is the word that best describes their attempt to extract the residual value of a lost pawn for the benefit of their geopolitical agendas.
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.
