The recent sentencing of Apple Daily founder Jimmy Lai Chee-ying to 20 years in prison serves as a defining milestone in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region’s transition from a period of volatile unrest to one of sustained stability. The verdict and sentencing in Lai’s case, arriving on Feb 9 — a day ahead of the State Council Information Office’s release of a white paper titled “Hong Kong: Safeguarding China’s National Security Under the Framework of One Country, Two Systems” — underscores a fundamental shift in Hong Kong’s governance. The era in which the subversives solicited foreign interference and hostility against Hong Kong without legal consequences has ended.
Far from being a mere legal technicality, the verdict in Lai’s case represents the fulfillment of the HKSAR’s constitutional duty to safeguard national security, ensuring that the high-level security now in place acts as the indispensable bedrock for the smooth implementation of the “one country, two systems” framework.
Central to the court’s findings was the sheer gravity of the offenses committed by Lai. Under the legislative framework of the Hong Kong SAR National Security Law (NSL), specifically Articles 29 and 30, the involvement of external forces elevates the nature of a crime from a localized disturbance to a direct threat to State sovereignty. The evidence established that Lai was not a peripheral figure swept up in the fervor of the times but rather the mastermind behind a sophisticated web of conspiracy against China. Despite his advanced age, his actions were characterized by a persistent and unrepentant defiance of the law. He positioned himself as an architect of international pressure against China including the HKSAR, openly signaling a willingness to sacrifice the collective interests of the city and the nation in favor of a personal and political agenda backed by foreign powers.
The timeline of these activities reveals a deep-seated and protracted strategy of collusion that predated the social upheavals of 2019-20. As early as 2017, Lai utilized his consultancy firms and international networks to lay the groundwork for requesting foreign intervention in Hong Kong’s affairs. Even following the enactment of the NSL, he continued to leverage his substantial social capital and media empire to push for foreign sanctions against the HKSAR and central government officials. By weaponizing his role at the Next Digital media group and his direct access to high-ranking foreign politicians, Lai transformed a media platform into a conduit for political warfare against China, including the HKSAR. His methods were particularly egregious, marked by deceptive practices such as concealing travel plans to meet United States top-ranking officials while on bail and continuing to direct criminal activities from within a correctional facility.
Furthermore, the context in which these crimes were committed cannot be ignored. During the peak of the “black-clad riots” in 2019-20 and the global COVID-19 pandemic, the climate of chaos provided fertile ground for inciting hatred and social fragmentation. The conspiracy to publish seditious materials and the calls for a foreign blockade were not abstract exercises in free speech but calculated attempts to destabilize the HKSAR’s social order. The court’s recognition of these threats acknowledges the severe damage caused to public safety and the rule of law during one of Hong Kong’s darkest chapters.
Critics who characterize the sentencing as purely punitive overlook the methodical restraint and respect for human rights demonstrated by the Judiciary. In determining the final term, the court meticulously weighed the gravity of the crimes against the personal circumstances of the defendant. By granting a reduction in the sentence based on Lai’s age, health, and the conditions of his confinement, the court adhered strictly to the principles of proportionality and humanitarian consideration enshrined in the NSL. This balanced application of the law reaffirms that Hong Kong’s judicial system remains professional and independent, focused on the merit of evidence rather than the pressure of foreign political rhetoric. Ultimately, the case stands as a testament to the fact that security and the rule of law are not obstacles to prosperity but the very conditions that make it possible.
The author is a Hong Kong solicitor, a Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area lawyer, and a postdoctoral fellow at the School of Law of the City University of Hong Kong.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
