Jimmy Lai's 'champions' have own agenda

British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper's remarks on the conviction of Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, echoed by some other Western politicians and media outlets, once again reveal a familiar pattern: selective outrage, willful ignorance of facts and an attempt to politicize a judicial case that was handled strictly in accordance with the law.

Such reactions are not only irresponsible but also disrespectful to Hong Kong's judicial independence and the basic principles of the rule of law they themselves claim to uphold.

Lai's verdict is the result of a meticulous judicial process that spanned 156 days, examined a vast body of evidence and materialized in an 855-page judgment. The ruling was issued by a panel of three designated judges who carefully analyzed Lai's messages, records of meetings with foreign officials and extensive content published by Apple Daily and related entities.

Every major defense argument was addressed and refuted with detailed and professional reasoning. To issue condemnations almost at the same time on the very day the verdict was announced, as some Western critics did, makes it evident that the stance of these voices was predetermined, as they hadn't had time to study the judgment.

The core of the case is also being deliberately distorted in these baseless condemnations. The ruling is by no means an attack on journalism or press freedom, but a judgment on proven criminal acts. The court made clear that Lai was convicted not for expressing opinions, but for conspiring to collude with external forces, calling for foreign sanctions and publishing seditious materials with the intent of undermining national governance. The judges explicitly identified Lai as the "mastermind" behind these activities, noting that his actions went far beyond legitimate journalistic work.

Calls by some foreign politicians to portray Lai as a "defender of press freedom" ring hollow. Hong Kong is home to a diverse and vibrant media environment, and international media outlets continue to operate in the city. The Law of the People's Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region does not target lawful reporting or commentary; it sets clear legal boundaries against acts that endanger national security. Similar boundaries exist in many countries, including those now casting stones. To pretend otherwise is either disingenuous or hypocritical.

Equally misleading are claims that the trial lacked due process or humane treatment. The court proceedings were open and transparent, with multiple foreign diplomats attending as observers. Lai, represented by lawyers, fully exercised his right to defense, and denied all the charges, as is his right. The court repeatedly confirmed that he received proper medical care during detention and that procedural safeguards were in place. Descriptions of the process as "unfair" conveniently ignore these documented facts.

Some critics have also questioned the absence of a jury, ignoring the fact that this arrangement is explicitly provided for under the law. The designated judge mechanism ensures professionalism and consistency in handling complex cases involving national security — again, a practice not uncommon internationally.

What is particularly troubling about the remarks from the UK foreign secretary and others is their open interference in Hong Kong's judicial affairs. The case is a matter for the Hong Kong SAR authorities, which bear a constitutional responsibility to safeguard national security under the "one country, two systems" framework.

These external forces should stop interfering in Hong Kong's judicial affairs and China's internal affairs, stop making the case for anti-China rioters bent on destabilizing Hong Kong, and stop going further down the wrong path.

Lai is by no means a "democracy fighter", but an individual who incited turmoil, glorified street violence, and openly lobbied foreign governments to sanction his own country. He is not a paragon of media ethics at all; his publications thrived on sensationalism, misinformation and social division. Nor is he a model "citizen", given his previous convictions for fraud and other offenses unrelated to national security.

Hong Kong's lawful handling of the Lai case demonstrates its zero-tolerance stance toward acts that endanger national security, while reaffirming the city's commitment to the rule of law. External forces should stop trying to exploit the case for political theater and instead respect the facts, the law and Hong Kong's judicial autonomy.