By Peter Douglas Koon
On Dec. 15, Jimmy Lai was found guilty on two charges of conspiring to collude with external forces to endanger national security and a charge of conspiracy to publish seditious materials by the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR). This decision has been broadly supported by mainstream opinion in HK society, as it aligns with the HKSAR efforts to safeguard national security and maintain a stable and prosperous social environment. However, certain foreign anti-China media outlets and politicians have issued inaccurate reports and comments on the trial. Among these, some individuals, claiming to be so-called "human rights experts" or religious figures, have deliberately distorted the judgment, misleading international public opinion. Such actions deserve firm condemnation from all sectors of society.
Solid evidence of anti-China and disruptive activities in HK
On the surface, Jimmy Lai is a businessman and the founder of several local media outlets in HK. In reality, he has long used media as a cover to participate in and orchestrate anti-China and disruptive activities in HK, acting as a behind-the-scenes manipulator.
The trial of Jimmy Lai was fair, impartial, and transparent. It lasted 156 days, during which the court reviewed a total of 2,220 pieces of evidence, over 80,000 pages of documents, testimonies from 14 prosecution witnesses, and other defense evidence. Both parties also submitted more than 1,000 pages of written arguments. Jimmy Lai himself testified in court for as many as 52 days. These facts demonstrate that his conviction was reached following a fair trial.
From the 2,220 pieces of evidence examined during the trial, it is clear that Jimmy Lai was a key planner and participant in a series of anti-China and disruptive incidents in HK over the past two decades. He was also the financial backer behind several anti-China organizations in HK and maintained close ties with foreign forces, facts that Lai himself has publicly admitted multiple times.
Therefore, anyone, including foreign media and politicians, should base their comments on the judgment of Jimmy Lai's case on facts. They should carefully read the court's 855-page ruling, understand whether the judgment complies with legal provisions, assess whether the court's analysis of legal principles and evidence is lawful and reasonable, and consider whether the decision was made independently and without interference. It is particularly worth noting that the court explicitly stated in its reasoning that Jimmy Lai was not being tried for his political views or beliefs.
Baseless rumors and slander
Additionally, some individuals, including Jimmy Lai's children, have spread claims overseas suggesting that Lai was unfairly treated, his health deteriorated without proper medical attention during imprisonment, and that he was denied communion and deprived of religious freedom. Such accusations have been used to argue that Lai was subjected to injustice and that the trial violated human rights and religious freedom.
In fact, Jimmy Lai's legal representatives confirmed in court in August 2025 that Lai was receiving appropriate medical care, with daily visits and checkups by medical staff, and no complaints were raised. The trial was conducted publicly, and attendees, including representatives of foreign diplomatic missions in HK, were able to observe Lai's physical condition. Contrary to external rumors, Lai was seen actively defending himself in court, appearing energetic and in good spirits, with no signs of poor health.
As for allegations of Lai being prohibited from receiving communion from visiting clergy or being deprived of religious freedom, these claims are equally groundless. Lai's lawyers clarified in September 2024 that Lai had initially chosen not to receive communion but later changed his mind and resumed receiving communion by the end of 2024.
Rights of inmates protected by law
As a member of the clergy with years of experience visiting prisons, I can attest that the Hong Kong Correctional Services Department operates under clear legal guidelines and has a strong reputation for professionalism and trustworthiness. HK is a society that greatly values the rule of law and human rights. Even inmates have their rights duly protected by law. The religious community in HK has long been committed to ensuring that the spiritual needs of prisoners are met through visits and services, while also monitoring government departments to ensure that inmates' religious rights are not interrupted.
Furthermore, HK has an effective system of social oversight. Trials are conducted publicly, fairly, and impartially, while government departments' law enforcement and administrative duties are carried out transparently under public scrutiny. It is unlikely for serious violations of human rights or religious freedom to occur.
As a major and significant case under the Hong Kong National Security Law, the trial and judgment of Jimmy Lai have naturally drawn attention both locally and internationally. Discussions and commentary surrounding the case are inevitable. However, such commentary must be based on facts and adhere to the principles of the rule of law to be credible. Preemptively labeling the judicial decision as negative and subsequently criticizing it under the guise of human rights, freedom, or even religion—without aligning with the facts or the spirit of the rule of law—not only lacks fairness but also misleads the public.
If certain individuals attempt to use false information and commentary to influence foreign politicians into interfering with the trial, aiming to politicize the judiciary and meddle in HK's internal affairs, such actions not only insult the spirit of the rule of law but also blatantly contravene the fundamental principles of international relations.
The author is a Hong Kong member of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference and a Hong Kong Legislative Council member.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.
Related News:
Comment