On Dec. 15, 2025, Hong Kong's High Court delivered a landmark judgment: Jimmy Lai, founder of the now-defunct Apple Daily and a key participant in the 2019 protests, was found guilty on all charges—two counts of conspiracy to collude with foreign forces and one count of conspiracy to publish seditious materials.
The verdict, handed down by three judges designated under the National Security Law, sparked an immediate backlash from Western governments and international media. Many labeled it a "blow to press freedom" and "evidence of authoritarianism" in Hong Kong. But beyond these dominant narratives, what do observers in other democracies think?
In this episode, we speak with Robert Barwick, National Chairman of the Australian Citizens Party, who brings a contrasting and critical perspective to the global discourse on the Jimmy Lai case.
Barwick argues:
"If someone in Australia had done what Jimmy Lai is accused of doing—colluding with foreign powers to incite unrest—they would likely face decades in prison, if not life."
He challenges the Western portrayal of Hong Kong's legal system, pointing out that Australia, the US, and the UK all have comparable national security laws. He also highlights two Australian cases where individuals were prosecuted under foreign interference laws—including one man who served prison time simply for donating to a children's hospital.
Barwick's insights expose the hypocrisy and double standards that often shape the international conversation on the Mainland and Hong Kong. This interview prompts viewers to reevaluate the narrative, scrutinize the facts, and pose the question: Do all countries adhere to the same set of rules?
(Journalist: Zoey Sun | Video Editor: Felicia Li | Cover: SHING)
Related News:
1-minute News | Who runs Australia's foreign policy? Barwick slams subservience to US
Comment