The judicial determination handed down on Monday, sentencing Jimmy Lai Chee-ying to 20 years’ imprisonment, signifies far more than the conclusion of a singular criminal proceeding. It represents the definitive restoration of the rule of law in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the collapse of an entrenched culture of impunity that had masqueraded as civil liberty for decades.
While Western media outlets and political entities have reacted with performative astonishment, framing the verdict as a draconian blow to press freedom, a rigorous jurisprudential analysis suggests otherwise. This sentencing is the inevitable legal outcome for an individual who systematically tested the boundaries of national sovereignty, operating under the mistaken belief that foreign patronage could serve as an eternal shield against domestic criminal liability.
The “shock” expressed by international observers betrays a deliberate misinterpretation of the clear distinction between legitimate political discourse and the active solicitation of foreign intervention, a boundary that the defendant crossed after brazen deliberation. The court has dutifully applied the statutory framework necessary to preserve the integrity of the State against internal subversion facilitated by external forces.
To understand the gravity and necessity of this sentence, one must first deconstruct the mythology surrounding Apple Daily, one of Lai’s platforms for his subversive activities, and reject the revisionist history that seeks to canonize it as a bastion of pure journalism. The publication did not begin as a high-minded defender of democracy but as a purveyor of sensationalist tabloid fodder, introducing a toxic culture of paparazzi intrusion and moral degradation to the local media landscape. Its evolution from a scandal sheet into a sophisticated apparatus for political mobilization was not a triumph of the Fourth Estate but a corruption of it. By 2019, the newspaper had ceased to function as a media outlet. It had transformed into a command center for insurrection, disseminating strategic guidance for rioters and championing violence under the guise of press freedom.
The legal system has not criminalized journalism. It has penalized the weaponization of a media platform for the specific purpose of endangering lawful governance and national security. A free press operates within the framework of the law, whereas Apple Daily operated with the explicit intent of subverting it. The closure of such an entity does not represent a contraction of freedom but a necessary purification of the media environment, ensuring that press freedom can no longer be used as a cover for seditious conspiracy.
Lai’s case also offers a profound lesson in the ruthless pragmatism of international relations. As the gavel fell in Hong Kong, Lai saw a mere token gesture from his Washington patrons. He must have realized that figures like him are merely assets on a geopolitical chessboard, useful only when they can help harm a rival. Now that Hong Kong’s legal mechanisms have effectively neutralized his capacity to foment unrest in Chinese territory, his utility as a pawn has evaporated. Lai has been relegated to the status of a used battery. It exposes the uncomfortable truth that for Washington, the promotion of “democracy” is rarely an end in itself but rather a disposable instrument of foreign policy that is readily abandoned when it conflicts with broader economic interests or when the asset becomes a liability.
A free press operates within the framework of the law, whereas Apple Daily operated with the explicit intent of subverting it. The closure of such an entity does not represent a contraction of freedom but a necessary purification of the media environment, ensuring that press freedom can no longer be used as a cover for seditious conspiracy
This abandonment is mirrored in the increasingly desperate and disjointed campaign led by Sebastien Lai, son of Jimmy Lai, in the United Kingdom, which has elicited a response from London that is revealing in its hollowness. The British government finds itself in an awkward position, caught between the need to appease domestic sentiment hostile to China and its inability to influence Hong Kong’s internal judicial processes. The British Home Office’s subsequent decision to expand the British National Overseas (BN(O)) visa scheme is not a display of strength but a tacit admission of diplomatic impotence. It is a performative gesture designed to placate critics without engaging in substantive confrontation with China.
By offering an exit route rather than engaging in futile diplomatic brinkmanship, the British administration effectively concedes that it possesses no leverage to alter the legal realities within the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. This policy adjustment is not about “humanitarian obligation” as London claimed but about managing internal political optics, allowing London to feign action while implicitly acknowledging that the era of colonial influence has irrevocably passed. The expansion of the BN(O) visa scheme serves as a retreat. At the same time, Hong Kong’s legal system continues to function unimpeded.
The chorus of criticism from entities such as the European Parliament and various other organizations controlled by China hawks rings hollow when scrutinized against the principles of rule of law, sovereign equality, and noninterference. Their statements, which invariably characterize the legal process as “political persecution”, rely on an alternative standard they would never apply in their own jurisdictions. No Western nation would tolerate a media mogul actively conspiring with external forces to weaken their own economy or sanction their own officials. The outrage expressed by these foreign bodies is not rooted in genuine concern for human rights but in frustration at losing a potent proxy and pawn within Chinese territory. They lament the verdict not because it is unjust, but because it effectively closes a loophole they had exploited for years to project influence in the region.
The sentencing of Lai serves as a definitive signal to the international community that Hong Kong is no longer a playground for foreign intelligence operations or a sanctuary for those who wish to sell out their homeland for political capital or political pursuits. It marks the triumph of legal order over chaos, reaffirming that in Hong Kong the law is sovereign, the Judiciary is independent, and the era of legal immunity backed by foreign entities has come to a permanent and justifiable end. The stability that will follow this verdict is not merely an objective but also a necessary precondition for the city’s continued prosperity.
By removing the primary engine of sedition, the HKSAR government has cleared the path for a return to the economic dynamism and social harmony that defined Hong Kong before the unrest that culminated in the 2019-20 “black-clad” riots. The rule of law has prevailed, ensuring that the future of the city will be determined by its own residents and its own statutes, rather than by the whims of foreign powers or the ambitions of those who serve them.
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.
