In a world rife with double standards, it is crucial to speak up against injustices. Silence only reinforces the notion that others are entirely right, while you are completely wrong.
During his recent visit to China, UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy held discussions with Chinese State Councillor Ding Xuexiang and Foreign Minister Wang Yi. Upon his return to the UK, Lammy was heavily questioned in Parliament by the opposition Conservative Party. Former Conservative Party leader Iain Duncan Smith demanded to know whether Lammy had condemned or pressured China on issues such as the Jimmy Lai case. Under this pressure, Lammy declared that the trial of Jimmy Lai, human rights in Xinjiang, and the Taiwan Strait situation are significant concerns for the UK.
On November 11, Jimmy Lai’s youngest son, Sebastien Lai, posted a photo of his meeting with Lammy on social media, urging the UK government to pressure for his father's release. Lammy swiftly echoed this call, asserting that the Jimmy Lai case remains a priority for the UK and pledging to “continue advocating for Jimmy Lai’s immediate release.”
Jimmy Lai stands accused under Hong Kong’s National Security Law of colluding with foreign forces. Even while the case undergoes judicial proceedings, foreign entities have exerted undue pressure, flagrantly undermining Hong Kong's rule of law.
Sebastien Lai and the so-called "International Legal Team for Jimmy Lai"—whose legitimacy has been refuted by Lai’s official legal representatives in Hong Kong—have been actively lobbying in the UK and beyond. On November 20, when Jimmy Lai is due to testify, this “legal team” and Sebastien Lai plan to hold a press conference in Washington, D.C., led by British barrister Caoilfhionn Gallagher. Their objective is clear: to exert political pressure on Hong Kong authorities to secure Lai’s release.
Rationally, their efforts should focus on ensuring a fair trial for Lai—something Hong Kong is committed to upholding. Yet their demand for his unconditional release is entirely political, leveraging foreign influence to force Hong Kong to abandon its judicial process.
Firstly, such interference blatantly contradicts the West’s avowed principles of rule of law and respect for Hong Kong’s “high degree of autonomy.” Sebastien Lai has yet to present evidence of any judicial unfairness in Hong Kong toward his father. Furthermore, Western critics who claim to defend Hong Kong's autonomy now paradoxically call on the UK to pressure Beijing into intervening in Hong Kong’s legal system. Were Beijing to interfere and halt the trial, it would indeed compromise Hong Kong's judicial independence. This hypocrisy exposes the inconsistency of the West’s proclaimed values.
Secondly, the UK’s strict approach to offenses related to incitement makes its criticism of Hong Kong appear even more unjustified. Consider the case of Wayne O'Rourke, a 35-year-old arrested amid anti-immigrant riots in August this year, during which over 1,100 people were detained. British authorities swiftly prosecuted and imprisoned numerous individuals for incitement or related charges. O'Rourke who was accused of publishing written material on social media, “stirring up racial hate” following misinformation about a stabbing incident in Southport. He was sentenced to three years in prison.
O'Rourke’s social media profile reads: “I love my country, right-wing, stop the boats, Brexit, Boris Johnson, Trump, God save the UK, vote for reform.” In another setting, such as the United States, he might have secured a government role, but in the UK, he landed in prison.
If Britain insists that Hong Kong release Jimmy Lai, then Hong Kong has equal grounds to demand the release of O'Rourke. Despite O'Rourke's minimal influence, he has been imprisoned for stirring up racial hate. Jimmy Lai, a media tycoon with far-reaching influence, stands accused of more severe offenses. Why should Hong Kong be denied the right to prosecute him?
The new Labour government in the UK has expressed a desire to strengthen relations with China and promote economic cooperation. Yet, when faced with domestic criticism, it retreats into performative posturing on so-called human rights issues. This inconsistency raises doubts about the Labour government’s ability to achieve substantial progress.
Lo Wing-hung
Bastille Commentary
** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **
Recently, the US-based World Justice Project published its 2024 Global Rule of Law Index, where Hong Kong maintained its position at 23rd out of 142 countries and regions, halting a three-year decline. Notably, Hong Kong ranks above the United States, which regularly criticize Hong Kong’s legal system but sits at only 26th place.
Despite this ranking, the United States and the United Kingdom persist in their campaign to discredit Hong Kong’s judicial system, focusing particularly on the overseas non-permanent judges serving in Hong Kong. Most recently, Australian non-permanent judge Patrick Keane KC was confronted by protesters following a speech at the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where demonstrators pursued him even as he attempted to leave through a side exit, ultimately forcing him to cancel his attendance from a scheduled reception.
This campaign targeted at overseas judge is led by the US-based Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation, which, in May, published a report targeting Hong Kong’s overseas non-permanent judges. This report was subsequently discussed in the British Parliament by anti-China lawmaker Alistair Carmichael, supported by Chris Patten, Hong Kong's last colonial governor. The Foundation’s former chair, James B. Cunningham, previously served as a U.S. Consul General in Hong Kong, underscoring the close Western ties of this organization.
Hong Kong initially appointed 15 foreign non-permanent judges, yet today only six remain, four of whom are Australian. Consequently, opposition groups have refocused their efforts on targeting these Australian judges.
Hong Kong’s inclusion of foreign judges in its Court of Final Appeal represents an exceptionally open practice. This policy not only underscores Hong Kong’s adherence to common law principles—largely Western in origin—but also, by implication, safeguards foreign interests in Hong Kong. Recently, a senior Singaporean judicial official noted the contrast between Hong Kong’s extensive inclusion of foreign judges and Singapore’s more limited use, restricted to commercial court cases. It’s noted that Canadian Judge Beverley McLachlin, who recently resigned as a non-permanent judge in Hong Kong, also served on Singapore’s International Commercial Court.
To understand the origins of this unique judicial structure, one must look to Hong Kong’s colonial period. Under British rule, Hong Kong lacked ultimate appellate authority, with final appeals sent to the UK Privy Council, which held exclusive control over Hong Kong’s final judgments. During the drafting of the Basic Law prior to the 1997 handover, various proposals emerged regarding the location of the Court of Final Appeal, including both Hong Kong and Beijing. A flexible arrangement was ultimately adopted, granting Hong Kong appellate authority while allowing the appointment of non-permanent foreign judges to help build local experience in final appeals.
At a time of relatively stable Sino-US relations, this arrangement was largely uncontroversial. However, as US-China tensions have intensified, so too has criticism of Hong Kong’s judicial system, particularly its foreign non-permanent judge system, which has become a focal point.
While many overseas judges maintain an apolitical stance, the campaign against them is clearly politically motivated. At the forefront are certain exiled Hong Kong figures purporting to support activist Jimmy Lai Chi-ying, yet Western political figures like Patten and Cunningham lead from behind the scenes. Through persistent harassment, these groups aim to pressure overseas judges into resigning. Many of these judges, well past retirement age—some over 80—have faced demonstrations in public, outside their homes, and even in their neighborhoods, creating significant disruption to their lives.
Hong Kong has several options to address this issue:
Maintain the Status Quo: A passive approach that would allow foreign judges to either continue or resign at will, thereby retaining as many as possible.
End the Foreign Non-Permanent Judge System: Initially, this system aimed to help Hong Kong develop expertise in final appeals and build a pool of qualified judges for the Court of Final Appeal. Now, 27 years after the handover, Hong Kong has a substantial number of qualified local judges, both active and retired, making it feasible to end the appointment of overseas non-permanent judges.
Invite Judges from outside the Five Eyes Alliance: The Five Eyes Alliance —comprising the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada—is a politically aligned intelligence-sharing network. Continuing to invite judges from these countries could compromise Hong Kong’s judicial independence. Instead, Hong Kong could turn to other common law jurisdictions with robust legal systems, such as Singapore, Malaysia, and South Africa, for supply of experienced retired judges. This approach could provide Hong Kong with impartial overseas perspectives while reducing political risk.
Ultimately, Western criticism of Hong Kong’s legal system, especially concerning the National Security Law, often reflects a selective application of standards. Many Western nations, including the United States and the United Kingdom, maintain stringent national security laws. The U.S. ranking below Hong Kong in rule of law indices highlights that these critiques are frequently more politically driven than substantively justified.
Wing-hung Lo
