By Wilson Shum Ho-kit
Jimmy Lai's conviction under Hong Kong's National Security Law is the culmination of a long record of anti‑China agitation and systematic collusion with foreign forces, making a heavy sentence both lawful and morally justified.
Long-standing anti-China agenda
For decades, Lai used his media, in particular the Apple Daily, and financial influence to promote hostility towards the central authorities and to delegitimize both the Chinese and Hong Kong governments. The court found that he had "nurtured resentment and animosity" towards the People's Republic of China over much of his adult life, and that this animus formed the backdrop to the conspiracies now proven against him.
Apple Daily and its related platforms became key vehicles in this political project. Judges observed that Lai leveraged his newspaper to wage a persistent campaign to "undermine the legitimacy" of the central and HKSAR authorities, going far beyond normal political commentary into organized efforts to incite confrontation and external pressure against the state.
Collusion with foreign forces
The heart of the case lies in Lai's deliberate solicitation of foreign interference to harm China and Hong Kong. The judgment and the evidence show that he systematically used his extensive network in the United States, Britain, and other jurisdictions to urge sanctions, blockades, and other hostile acts against the country and the HKSAR.
The court held that Lai was the "mastermind" of conspiracies to collude with foreign forces, using Apple Daily's English‑language content, public articles, and behind‑the‑scenes contacts to "trigger sanctions" and other punitive measures. He was found to have worked in concert with overseas lobbying groups, including campaigns specifically designed to push foreign legislatures and executives to target Chinese and Hong Kong officials under the banner of so‑called "international lobbying." These activities were not isolated incidents but formed a continuous and coordinated strategy spanning years before and after the National Security Law came into force, demonstrating a sustained intention to enlist external power centers against his country.
Harm to national security and public order
By calling for foreign sanctions and other coercive measures, Lai's actions directly struck at China's sovereignty, security, and development interests, as well as Hong Kong's stability and prosperity. Sanctions and hostile acts encouraged by such lobbying do not merely target officials; they risk undermining the city's economy, international financial role, and the livelihoods of ordinary residents in Hong Kong.
The court accepted that Apple Daily's seditious publications fuelled distrust and hatred towards the authorities, aggravating social tensions and encouraging confrontation during a period of severe unrest. In this sense, Lai's conduct represented a classic case of "internal–external collusion": using local platforms to stir resistance at home while inviting foreign powers to intervene from outside, jointly eroding national security.
Legal basis for a heavy sentence
Under the National Security Law, "collusion with a foreign country or with external elements to endanger national security" is a grave offense, with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment for principal offenders. The trial judges have conclusively determined that Lai was not merely a minor participant in the collusion conspiracies, but rather the primary architect and leader who guided others in media and lobbying activities.
Sentencing principles in serious national security cases require the court to consider the nature of the intent (to solicit sanctions and hostile acts), the degree of organization, the duration of the scheme, and the actual or potential damage to national security and public order. On every one of these dimensions, Lai's conduct falls at the most serious end of the spectrum: long-running, highly organized, directed at foreign state actors, and aimed at inflicting structural harm on the country and the HKSAR rather than expressing mere dissent.
Given the facts affirmed in court, it is neither excessive nor arbitrary to impose a severe custodial term; rather, it is a proportionate response to grave offenses that deliberately crossed the red line of national security. Lai enjoyed substantial resources, international connections, and media platforms, yet chose to deploy them not to contribute to Hong Kong's stability and development, but to invite external punishment and pressure against his own jurisdiction, fully aware of the risks to society.
In this light, a heavy sentence would not only uphold the rule of law by enforcing the clear prohibitions in the National Security Law against collusion with foreign forces, but it also reflects the moral culpability of someone who orchestrated campaigns for sanctions and hostile acts against his country, disregarding the broader public interest. This will send a necessary and clear deterrent message that "anti‑China" activities, which combine internal agitation with external intervention, will attract serious legal consequences, and no one should dare to challenge the law and endanger national security.
Viewed against his long history of anti‑China agitation and his proven role as the mastermind of foreign‑collusion conspiracies, Jimmy Lai's conviction is well‑grounded in law, and a stringent sentence is both reasonable and deserved. Any outcome short of a heavy penalty would fail to reflect the seriousness of the offenses and the real risks his conduct posed to national security and to the well‑being of Hong Kong residents.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.
Related News:
Opinion | Panama Court's ruling enhances US Hegemonic ambition to intervene business affairs
Comment