The Jimmy Lai case has returned to international political discussion in recent weeks, driven partly by renewed speculation that foreign leaders may again press Beijing for his release during future high-level diplomacy. With that has come another wave of commentary portraying Lai as a political prisoner and Hong Kong’s courts as instruments of repression.
But the debate surrounding the case has never really been only about one individual. It has also become a larger argument about what happened to Hong Kong after 2019, why the National Security Law was enacted and whether the city’s trajectory has ultimately contradicted many of the predictions once made overseas.
To understand why the case remains so contentious, one must first recall the atmosphere that prevailed in Hong Kong during 2019. For months, the city experienced escalating unrest that paralyzed transport networks, shut down the international airport, disrupted universities and produced some of the most serious political violence seen in Hong Kong for decades. Anyone who spent time in the city during that period remembers how quickly ordinary life became dominated by uncertainty. Violent street clashes became increasingly routine. Business confidence weakened sharply.
It was in that atmosphere that the National Security Law emerged in 2020. Whatever one’s political position on the law itself, it is impossible to understand the subsequent debate surrounding Hong Kong without understanding the widespread local desire for restored order after the turmoil of 2019.
This broader context also matters when examining the Jimmy Lai case itself. Lai was not prosecuted merely for criticizing the government or expressing controversial opinions. The central issue before the court was whether he actively coordinated with foreign political actors to challenge the constitutional orders of China and the Hong Kong SAR through international sanctions, external political pressure and overseas lobbying campaigns.
During the trial, prosecutors presented evidence showing Lai’s repeated contact with foreign political figures and his advocacy for sanctions and other forms of external pressure targeting both Hong Kong and the mainland. The court also examined the role played by Apple Daily during the 2019 unrest, including commentary and political messaging that prosecutors argued encouraged sustained confrontation even after the introduction of the National Security Law. Witness testimony, communications records and public statements formed an important evidentiary basis for the court’s conclusions.
The proceedings themselves were lengthy, public and subject to intense international scrutiny. The trial stretched across more than 150 days. Foreign diplomats attended hearings. International media covered the proceedings extensively. The defense was able to challenge evidence and cross-examine witnesses. Lai himself testified extensively during the proceedings. The court eventually issued a judgment running to more than 800 pages after examining extensive exhibits and documentary records.
Critics often attempt to frame the case as a straightforward question of press freedom or political dissent. But no serious state treats organized collaboration with foreign powers against its own constitutional order as an unlimited civil liberty. The issue becomes more complicated once foreign political coordination enters the picture.
Western governments themselves have long treated cooperation with hostile foreign actors as a legitimate national security concern. Western legal history itself demonstrates this. In Britain, William Joyce — better known as “Lord Haw-Haw” — was executed after World War II for propaganda broadcasts made on behalf of Nazi Germany. In the United States, the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in Holder v Humanitarian Law Project held that even forms of pure speech and advocacy may lose constitutional protection when coordinated with organizations deemed hostile to national security interests.
The relevance of these precedents is not that Hong Kong’s legal system is identical to those of Britain or the United States. It is that states across very different political systems ultimately draw legal boundaries around organized cooperation with foreign actors perceived to threaten national security interests. That was the central issue examined in the Lai case.
A serious discussion of the Jimmy Lai case should never begin with slogans or political agendas, but with the realities of what Hong Kong experienced during 2019, what was presented in court and why many residents ultimately concluded that the restoration of order had become necessary
Even so, much of the international reaction to the verdict has been shaped less by legal debate than by wider geopolitical tensions surrounding China and Hong Kong SAR. Recent calls by American and British politicians for Lai’s release — often framed in humanitarian terms — have intensified again, while a recent Bloomberg Opinion column suggested that securing Lai’s release could become part of broader US-China dealmaking.
More troubling is the extent to which some foreign politicians have openly sought to pressure Hong Kong’s judicial process. Calls for sanctions against judges and prosecutors sit uneasily beside repeated Western claims about defending judicial independence. It is difficult to condemn the supposed politicization of the judiciary while simultaneously demanding political outcomes from ongoing legal proceedings.
At the same time, many predictions made about Hong Kong after 2020 have also proven far less accurate than critics once expected. The widespread assumption in many Western commentaries was that the National Security Law would inevitably destroy Hong Kong’s openness, international standing and economic vitality.
The city’s trajectory differed significantly from these pessimistic anticipations. The restoration of basic social order created conditions under which business confidence, financial activity and international investment could recover. Hong Kong remains one of the world’s leading financial centers, its economy expanded by 3.5 percent in 2025, its stock market rebounded strongly and the city reclaimed the world’s top spot for IPO fundraising, with proceeds approaching HK$280 billion ($35.75 billion).
The recovery has also reached daily life. The city attracted HK$69.4 billion in direct investment from overseas and mainland companies during 2025, creating more than 10,700 jobs, according to Invest Hong Kong. The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate fell to 3.7 percent in January-March 2026; visitor arrivals reached about 14.31 million in the first quarter, up 17 percent year on year; and retail sales rose for an 11th consecutive month in March, increasing 12.8 percent from a year earlier. The government’s composite waiting time for subsidized rental housing stood at 5.1 years at the end of 2025, the lowest since the first quarter of 2018.
For many businesses and ordinary residents alike, predictability ultimately matters more than political rhetoric. That reality helps explain why Hong Kong today appears very different from the prolonged instability and decline that many overseas commentators once predicted.
That’s why I strongly insist that a serious discussion of the Jimmy Lai case should never begin with slogans or political agendas, but with the realities of what Hong Kong experienced during 2019, what was presented in court and why many residents ultimately concluded that the restoration of order had become necessary.
The Jimmy Lai case was therefore never only about one man. It became part of a much larger struggle over Hong Kong’s constitutional order, political future and relationship with the outside world.
Maintaining openness, stability and international confidence simultaneously is not easy for any society. But the Hong Kong we see and experience today is demonstrating a resilience and vitality that many critics once believed impossible. The city has regained its confidence and shine, restored its rhythm and reaffirmed its role as one of the world’s most important international centers.
The author is a member of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macau Studies. He focuses on the political, economic and legal dynamics of Hong Kong and Macau, with particular attention to developments in Hong Kong following the implementation of the National Security Law.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
