They say feng shui masters can keep you dangling for years, but sometimes predictions come true at lightning speed. Just two days ago, we said Jimmy Lai – founder of Next Digital – would play the health card during closing arguments. Well, guess what happened? Bang on schedule, Lai stepped right onto the stage.
Before the show began, his son, Sebastian Lai, was already cranking up the drama, waving claims of “inhumane treatment” in prison. In an interview with Nikkei Asia on August 13, he took it up a notch – warning the international press that his dad’s “days were numbered,” painting Lai as a victim denied basic medical care.
Courtroom Antics Unveiled
After a one-day black rain delay, Lai’s trial resumed on August 15. Enter Jimmy Lai, immediately telling the court he had a heart condition and wanted out of the hearing – plotting a neat little scene of alleged prison abuse and cardiac emergency.
But the judges weren’t having any of it. They insisted closing submissions are part of the trial and told Lai he had to attend. Sensibly, the hearing was adjourned to August 18 so the Correctional Services Department could fit him with a 24-hour heart monitor. Behind closed doors, it was revealed that Lai had already seen a specialist on August 7, completed blood tests and an ECG, with zero abnormalities. The doctor’s advice? Wear the monitor and take the meds. Lai refused.
Notably, the defense lawyer conceded that Lai gets daily checks and professional medical care arranged by correctional staff, with blood pressure and pulse monitored – and hadn’t complained at all. When Lai’s refusal of the heart monitor and medication became public, the defense said it was all a misunderstanding and, lo and behold, Lai suddenly agreed to cooperate.
Health Claims: Smoke and Mirrors?
The three judges dug deep into the medical care provided by the Correctional Services Department. Judge Du Li-ping even openly praised their concern for Lai’s health and decided the trial would pick up again next Monday.
So what do Lai’s health dramatics really show us?
Lai just proclaimed that he had a heart issue while no specialist corroborated his tale. You can’t just walk in, declare yourself sick and expect the world to nod along.
Lai also refused both the portable monitor and medication after a checkup. Crying heart problems but refusing tests – sounds pretty fishy. Maybe he worried the monitor would shatter his story.
Unsurprisingly, the court wasn’t convinced. Lai’s plea to skip the hearing was flatly denied.
Both the court and the defense confirmed that Lai’s medical care in prison was not just adequate, but commendable – putting a torpedo through overseas claims of abuse and medical neglect.
Western Media’s Scripted Spin
Despite the facts, foreign outlets barely skimmed the surface – instead parroting Lai’s story. CNN dropped a piece titled “Hong Kong court delays trial of media tycoon Jimmy Lai under national security law over health concerns,” cherry-picking facts and ignoring the medical realities. They even quoted Lai’s son warning about his father’s deteriorating health. The script was essentially written in advance – no matter how absurd, the foreign press played their part.
In the end, Lai’s “health scare” was a textbook case of self-fulfilling political performance, not a genuine medical crisis. What’s really on display here? The foreign media’s relentless appetite for political narratives – even when exposed by the court for what they really are.
Jimmy Lai’s awkward act proves it was all staged for external hype. My advice? Knock it off. You can’t pretend your way through illness – better to face the court’s fair judgment and drop the theatrics.
Lo Wing-hung
Bastille Commentary
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
Some people fancy themselves legal eagles. So they exploit every procedural loophole to challenge the government. The practical effect: draining public resources and burning through taxpayers' cash.
Enter Chow Hang-tung. The former vice-chair of the now-defunct Hong Kong Alliance took issue with prison dress codes. Her legal gambit hit a wall on Tuesday when High Court Judge Russell Coleman tossed the case and stuck her with the bill.
On September 6, 2024, Chow filed her judicial review application over the CSD's inmate clothing policy. Her complaint: Female inmates must wear long pants during summer unless granted special permission, while male inmates wear shorts. She also alleged that in July and August 2024, she verbally requested permission to wear shorts from CSD staff on two separate occasions—both times refused. Therefore, Chow sought judicial review of both the clothing policy itself and the Department's alleged denial of her shorts request.
Chow was previously jailed after being convicted of "inciting others to knowingly participate in an unauthorized assembly." She's still awaiting trial this year on a separate charge of "inciting subversion of state power."
Court Slams the Door Shut
The High Court judge dismissed Chow's judicial review application. In his judgment, Judge Coleman pointed out that the current inmate clothing policy—including requiring female inmates to wear long pants during daytime in summer—was formulated by the CSD under authority granted by the Prison Rules. The court was satisfied that the Department possessed professional expertise and experience in this area, had carefully weighed various factors and consulted professional opinions during the decision-making process, and conducts continuous reviews. The court ruled that Chow failed to prove the current policy discriminates against female inmates.
The CSD emphasized the importance of uniformity in inmates' clothing. Think of it like school uniforms—it helps train discipline and accommodates female inmates' emphasis on privacy, covering scars, leg hair, and so forth.
Judge Coleman also agreed with CSD Senior Clinical Psychologist Hung Suet-wai's assessment that female inmates' mental health is more vulnerable, and some female inmates are particularly sensitive with unique clothing needs. Additionally, since male staff regularly enter female correctional facilities, appropriate clothing should be provided to protect female inmates' privacy. Wearing long pants therefore allows female inmates to feel psychologically more comfortable and secure.
Regarding Chow's claim that she requested to wear shorts between July and August 2024 and was refused by the CSD, Judge Coleman found her account unconvincing.
What the Evidence Actually Shows
Observing Chow's conduct and the entire judicial review proceedings, several conclusions jump out.
1. Chow's passion for making requests
As the High Court judgment pointed out, according to CSD records, between July 2021 and September 2024—a span of 3 years and 2 months—Chow made a total of 297 requests (averaging 21 requests per month).
Yet oddly, never once did she include a request to wear shorts. During the same period, across 136 consultations with CSD doctors, she never mentioned feeling uncomfortable or overheated from wearing long pants, nor had she ever requested to wear shorts for any health-related reasons.
This clearly shows her allegation of making requests that were refused by the CSD was completely fabricated. She's simply hunting for various reasons to challenge the CSD, constantly wanting to sue the government.
2. Burning public funds on the public's dime
Chow formally submitted hundreds of requests to the CSD. Just responding to her requests already left CSD Staff exhausted. If dissatisfied, she'd complain through various channels, or even file for judicial review to challenge the Department's decisions—wasting massive CSD resources and court time.
Many people complain about lengthy scheduling delays at the High Court. These "serial filers" constantly filing lawsuits occupy precious court time.
3. Prison is not a holiday resort
Jimmy Lai's children complained that it was too hot for him in prison without air conditioning. Before the judgment, Chow's Patreon account grumbled about the inability to shower or change into fresh pants when the trousers get dirty from daily prison routine—freedoms she suggested ordinary people take for granted. They seem to treat imprisonment like a vacation, expecting various freedoms.
Prison indeed, as Chow said, has "no such freedom." If prison offered all sorts of freedoms, plus basically provided food, accommodation, and priority medical care, many people would deliberately commit crimes to go to prison.
How Prison Oversight Actually Works
I am a Justice of the Peace and regularly inspect prisons. I fully understand that to ensure inmates' rights are protected, the CSD provides various channels both within and outside the Department for inmates to voice complaints—for example, to Justices of the Peace who conduct regular visits or to the Ombudsman.
The Department has continuously implemented multiple measures to improve the detention environment within prisons. I've seen powerful fans installed in prisons. New gates and windows with better ventilation efficiency are also being installed to improve air circulation within facilities.
Hong Kong's treatment of prisoners is already very humane—unlike the United States, which sends unconvicted illegal immigrants to prisons in El Salvador with harsh conditions. That Barbie-doll-like US Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem even made a special trip to pose for photos outside prison cells in El Salvador, treating inmates' privacy as nothing.
I fully support the High Court's dismissal of Chow's judicial review application and ordering her to pay the CSD's legal costs, reducing the burden on taxpayers.
Lo Wing-hung
