by Virginia Lee, Solicitor
Trump's recent remarks regarding the ongoing prosecution of Hong Kong resident Jimmy Lai Chi-ying reveal an astonishing level of disrespect for judicial independence and national sovereignty. His suggestion that Lai's case be used as leverage in trade negotiations with China is inappropriate and deeply offensive. It reduces a legal proceeding to a political bargaining chip and reflects a broader pattern of American interference under the guise of diplomacy.
Lai is not a symbol of press freedom but a defendant facing serious criminal charges. The portrayal of him as a victim of political persecution is a deliberate mischaracterization aimed at discrediting Hong Kong's legal system. The case against Lai is built on substantial evidence, including communications and financial links to foreign entities. These are not acts of journalism; they are serious matters that any jurisdiction would treat with utmost gravity.
The United States has long presented itself as a global advocate for the rule of law. However, in practice, it often disregards this principle when it conflicts with geopolitical interests. For a US president to publicly demand the release of a defendant mid-trial in another territory is a gross violation of diplomatic norms. This type of interference would be unthinkable if the roles were reversed—if Hong Kong or Chinese officials were to comment on ongoing US court cases, there would be immediate outrage in Washington.
Hong Kong's judicial system functions independently and in accordance with established legal procedures. Defendants are entitled to legal representation, due process, and the right to appeal. Lai has received all these protections. The narrative that he is being silenced or mistreated is a political invention, not a reflection of the robust independence of our legal system.
Criticism of Lai's detention conditions is another example of selective outrage aimed at manipulating public opinion. Hong Kong’s correctional facilities meet international standards, and any concerns about detainee welfare should be addressed through proper legal channels—not through foreign media campaigns or emotionally charged comments by family members.
Suggesting that releasing Jimmy Lai would serve as a "gesture of goodwill" is naive and insulting. It implies that Hong Kong's legal system can be swayed by external pressure and that justice should be traded in diplomatic negotiations. This mindset is not only outdated but dangerous. It reflects a colonial-era arrogance that has no place in modern international relations.
Trump's framing of legal matters in transactional terms exposes a deeply ingrained mentality within segments of the American political establishment: one that treats other nations' laws as obstacles to be bypassed rather than institutions to be respected. His attitude fosters distrust and undermines the possibility of meaningful cooperation on global issues.
The United States must recognize that its era of moral dominance has ended. Its selective advocacy, double standards, and reflexive interference in other countries' affairs have eroded its credibility. Trump's comments are not isolated—they are symptomatic of a broader failure to recognize that other societies have the right to enforce their own laws and define their own standards of justice. Respect for other nations' laws and justice systems is crucial for meaningful international relations.
The outcome of Lai's case will be determined by evidence and legal reasoning, not by foreign politicians or media narratives. Hong Kong will continue to uphold its judicial principles on its terms, free from external coercion. Those seeking to politicize this case should reflect on their legal integrity before judging others.
Virginia Lee
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
LEE WING CHEUNG, VIRGINIA Solicitor
The European Union’s (EU) recent report on Hong Kong is less a legal analysis than a political statement disguised in the language of human rights. Its content reflects prejudice and an outdated mentality that Europe retains the right to pass judgment on Chinese sovereignty. Such a position contradicts the international principle of equality among states and exposes the remnants of colonial arrogance. The EU’s portrayal of Hong Kong does not advance truth but instead promotes destabilisation through bias and selective interpretation.
One of the report’s major flaws lies in its discussion of Article 23 of the Basic Law and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance. Article 23 is not a recent creation but a constitutional duty written into law when Hong Kong returned to China. States across the globe maintain legislation to protect sovereignty and security, yet the EU condemns Hong Kong for implementing safeguards entirely consistent with global practice. This condemnation reflects a political agenda rather than any genuine legal objection, as European governments themselves enforce comparable national security measures.
The EU also distorts Hong Kong’s judicial process. Trials are depicted as orchestrated, and judicial appointments as questionable, when in fact Hong Kong courts follow lawful procedures and maintain transparency. Decisions are issued on statutory grounds, and trial durations or bail conditions fall within the range of judicial discretion accepted globally. Europe’s refusal to respect these outcomes reveals a preference for interference over recognition of judicial independence. Far from defending the rule of law, the EU undermines it by expecting Hong Kong’s courts to conform to foreign political expectations.
The criticism of extraterritoriality in Hong Kong’s national security legislation further demonstrates ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation. International law recognises that states may prosecute offences abroad if these acts threaten national security. European states themselves frequently rely on this principle in combating terrorism or cybercrime; for the EU to denounce Hong Kong’s use of the exact mechanism displays open hypocrisy. The law does not arbitrarily target individuals abroad but applies only to conscious efforts aimed at destabilisation. This is a legitimate and widely recognised practice of statecraft.
The treatment of media and civil society in the report reflects the same selective judgment. Restrictions on publications advocating secession or encouraging hostility are common even in Europe, where they are justified under hate speech or anti-extremism laws. Yet when Hong Kong enforces similar safeguards, it is labelled repressive. Civil groups that dissolved due to breaches of national security law or foreign influence are portrayed as victims, while their own unlawful conduct is overlooked. Such double standards expose the EU’s political motivations.
The objection to national security education is also baseless. Every state requires its citizens, particularly public servants, to respect constitutional order. European governments impose loyalty pledges and codes of conduct, yet depict Hong Kong’s similar requirements as authoritarian. Such education, especially considering previous unrest, is not indoctrination but responsible governance.
Even on economic matters, the EU misleads. It attributes ordinary fluctuation to politics while ignoring global uncertainties caused by post-pandemic restructuring and financial turbulence. The continued success of European enterprises in Hong Kong contradicts the EU’s claims of decline. If the environment were as damaging as alleged, foreign companies would not persist in conducting profitable operations there.
Finally, the EU’s stance on human rights collapses under its own contradictions. While Europe imposes restrictive migration regimes, extensive surveillance laws and limitations on speech, it presumes to judge Hong Kong. This criticism ignores the independence of Hong Kong courts, which have delivered progressive rulings on equality, including for LGBTQ citizens. Such advances are incompatible with the EU’s portrait of a system in collapse.
The tone of colonial oversight permeates the entire report. Its language suggests superiority, as though Hong Kong’s laws and governance require European approval. Yet the sovereignty of China over Hong Kong is complete and undeniable. Europe’s posture cannot obscure the consistent reality that Hong Kong exercises its constitutional right to maintain order and stability.
In truth, the EU’s repeated criticisms reveal its own political hostility rather than principled analysis. Hong Kong and China govern in accordance with law to preserve security and prosperity for their citizens. No judgment from external powers can alter this fundamental reality, nor diminish China’s sovereign right to safeguard its integrity.
