Skip to Content Facebook Feature Image

Lai Chee-ying’s son spreads misinformation in the UK, claiming his father “not being able to receive Holy Communion in prison”. Although Lai's legal team took the initiative to clarify, some continue to spread such fake news

Blog

Lai Chee-ying’s son spreads misinformation in the UK, claiming his father “not being able to receive Holy Communion in prison”.  Although Lai's legal team took the initiative to clarify, some continue to spread such fake news
Blog

Blog

Lai Chee-ying’s son spreads misinformation in the UK, claiming his father “not being able to receive Holy Communion in prison”. Although Lai's legal team took the initiative to clarify, some continue to spread such fake news

2024-11-08 22:39 Last Updated At:22:39

Remark: The following article was written on October 13, 2024 11:51

Sebastien Lai, the son of Lai Chee-ying, founder of Next Digital, recently visited the UK to meet with UK officials, hoping to raise his father's case with the British Foreign Secretary before the latter's upcoming visit to China.

On Friday, October 11th, Sebastien Lai attended a “Reporters Without Borders” event in London and revealed that the British Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, did not meet with him. He only met with Catherine West, Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign Office, on Tuesday.

According to a Reuters report on Wednesday, David Lammy will visit China next week in an attempt to reset UK-China relations.

Caoilfhionn Gallagher KC, the British barrister leading Lai’s so-called “overseas legal team”, stated that the British government should make Lai's release a condition for renegotiating relations with the Chinese government.

Informed sources suggest that if the British government makes Lai's release a prerequisite, restarting UK-China relations would be impossible. David Lammy's avoidance of Sebastien Lai indicates an unwillingness to jeopardize these relations. It is estimated that during his visit to China, David Lammy will, at most, routinely mention Lai's case as a formality, without pursuing any concrete results.

Furthermore, in an interview with the Voice of America (VOA), Sebastien Lai reiterated the claim that his father is unable to receive Holy Communion in prison. He told VOA that he believes this is a form of mental torture, as Lai has been in solitary confinement for nearly four years, and religion is important to him. He expressed sadness at his father's inability to receive Communion and considered it as absurd.

The origin of this rumor stems from the recent actions of “Hong Kong Watch”, closely associated with Lai, and his “overseas legal team”. They have been heavily publicizing claims that Lai is being subjected to solitary confinement and denied human rights, including the right to receive Holy Communion. Lai's “overseas legal team” even filed an urgent appeal with the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, creating a “prisoner abuse” incident in Hong Kong.

There were questions about whether the situation in Hong Kong was truly that exaggerated, and whether prisoners in Hong Kong were so deprived of their human rights. It was learned that it was Lai himself who requested solitary confinement and also decided not to receive Holy Communion.

The Correctional Services Department (CSD) was contacted about the rumors, including whether Lai had requested solitary confinement and indicated his intention not to receive Holy Communion. Confirmation was sought from the CSD on whether Lai had made these requests.
CSD responded that it handles the custodial arrangements for persons in custody in accordance with the Prisons Ordinance, relevant laws, and established mechanisms. If a person in custody requests for protection and wishes to be removed from association with other inmates, and CSD considers that there are reasonable grounds for believing it is desirable to do so for the maintenance of good order or discipline, or in the interests of the prisoner, the institution management will make appropriate arrangements accordingly. In addition, if a person in custody wishes to receive religious services, including worship and Holy Communion, they can make arrangements through chaplains of CSD. Conversely, if an inmate chooses not to receive Holy Communion, the CSD will respect their wishes. The CSD stated that it has handled Lai's case in accordance with the aforementioned mechanisms.

The CSD's response is sufficiently clear that it refers to Lai, confirming that they arranged solitary confinement for Lai based on his own request. Regarding the Holy Communion, the CSD also acted according to Lai's will.

Following the CSD's response, Robertsons, the law firm representing Lai in the national security case, issued a statement clarifying that Lai is receiving appropriate treatment in prison. They stated that Lai is aware he is able to receive Holy Communion through special arrangements with the CSD, requiring a priest to hold a Mass specifically for him. Due to the inconvenience of this arrangement, he has not yet made such a request.

This statement from Robertsons confirms that Lai is not being mistreated and has not requested to receive Holy Communion.

However, Sebastien Lai and Hong Kong Watch continue to ignore this clarification, propagating the narrative in the UK that the denial of Communion is a form of mental torture. VOA also continues to report this false information.

Informed sources suggest that Robertsons felt compelled to issue a clarification because if Lai knowingly spreads misinformation, it could not only be considered criminal libel but also detrimental to his case. This effectively distances Lai from these false allegations of mistreatment.

However, Lai's son and organizations like the Hong Kong Watch continue to spread the false narrative of Lai being forced into solitary confinement and denied Holy Communion, creating a false impression of prisoner abuse in Hong Kong. The continued dissemination of such misinformation by VOA raises serious questions about its journalistic ethics.




Ariel

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

The Jimmy Lai trial ripped the mask off "Stand with Hong Kong." Courts heard how Lai and his operatives weaponized this so-called advocacy group to pursue their "international line"—code for colluding with foreign forces to destabilize national security. But even after ringleaders Andy Li Yu-hin and Chan Tsz-wah got arrested and locked up, Stand with Hong Kong keeps on running. Someone's still pulling the strings.

Born in the chaos of the anti-extradition bill period, "Stand with Hong Kong"—also known as the "lam chau team" (SWHK)—adopted the scorched-earth slogan "If we burn, you burn with us". They've always claimed to be independent, grassroots, funded by crowdsourcing. That story fell apart in court. Evidence showed Lai bankrolled their global ad campaigns and international lobbying—specifically their push to get foreign countries to sanction China.

After the implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law, Stand with Hong Kong still did not restrain itself. It keeps churning out anti-China content online, publishing report after report. Just last month, they handed the European Union a hit list—14 Hong Kong SAR government officials and police officers they want sanctioned for alleged "human rights violations" and "abuse of force" during 2019.

A Web of Anti-China Allies

Stand with Hong Kong doesn't work alone. They team up constantly with other anti-China outfits, issuing joint statements, lobbying Washington, London, and Brussels to slap sanctions on Hong Kong SAR officials. They've publicly demanded the British government intervene to free Jimmy Lai. They've organized multiple protests in London opposing construction of the Chinese embassy in the UK.

The operation is aggressive, the activities extensive. Yet the key players hide in shadows. Where's the money coming from?

In recent years, the team's gone underground. They operate mainly through online publications and mobilization, coordinating with overseas individuals and organizations. Their website and social media? No contact persons listed. No one claiming responsibility.

The Crowdfunding Fairy Tale

They claim they "rely on crowdfunding to maintain operations". But since their last crowdfunding drive in May 2020, Stand with Hong Kong hasn't published a single shred of public information showing any subsequent fundraising activity.

So where does the cash come from? Informed sources suggest looking at Stand with Hong Kong's overseas network for answers.

Organizations working hand-in-glove with Stand with Hong Kong include the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation—run by Mark Clifford, former Next Digital Group director. There's Hong Kong Watch, funded by Mark Simon and operated primarily by Benedict Rogers. There's the Hong Kong Democracy Council, fronted by fugitive national security suspect Anna Kwok. And since 2023, Stand with Hong Kong has served as secretariat for the UK's All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong.

These "friendly organizations" form a network with crystal-clear political objectives. Through overseas advocacy and coordinated actions, their primary target is attacking the Central Government and the SAR government.

In other words: Jimmy Lai may be behind bars facing trial, but the organizations and individuals Stand with Hong Kong maintains close contact with all have direct or indirect ties to Lai. Whether this team—which brands itself a "grassroots organization"—receives operational funding and other support within this anti-China network remains the billion-dollar question.

Recommended Articles