Mai Junhao
Hong Kong is set to begin its quadrennial election day for the Legislative Council tomorrow. While still recovering from the Tai Po fire, the city is once again in election mode, albeit in a more solemn mood. Candidates are making final efforts to garner support while citizens make up their minds on whom to support. As one voter said, “life goes on, I will vote this Sunday because it is my civic duty and I believe even one vote can make a difference.”
Yesterday, Secretary for Health Lo Chung-mau announced the heartwarming news that all hospitalized victims of the Tai Po fire were no longer in critical condition. In the wake of this sudden and tragic disaster, the people of Hong Kong have demonstrated outstanding resilience and solidarity that has won worldwide praise. Tomorrow’s LegCo election will be a sign that Hong Kong has successfully overcome the disaster and is ready for a new chapter.
Certain foreign media outlets and malicious actors have tried to paint a gloomy picture for Hong Kong recently, portraying Hong Kongers as too grief-stricken to vote and the SAR government as inconsiderate for pushing ahead with the election. This is both misleading and irresponsible. There is no contradiction between voting in the Legislative Council election and mourning the fire’s victims, just as there is no contradiction between holding an election and disaster relief. The people of Hong Kong have proven capable of being both outstanding citizens and empathetic human beings, and the SAR government has proven capable of taking care of affected residents and organizing the election at the same time. So far, the government has arranged temporary housing for nearly 4,000 affected residents and provided dedicated social workers for each affected family, with the official relief fund receiving more than HK\$3 billion in donations.
There is still much to be done, and this can only be achieved by first getting the best possible candidates into the Legislative Council. Taking care of displaced residents of Wang Fuk Court and rebuilding their homes requires legislative approval for relevant expenditure. As the government launches an independent commission to investigate the fire, it is up to the Legislative Council to pass laws that would strengthen safety measures and prevent future disasters. Many candidates have voiced their views on this matter and promised to make this their immediate priority in office.
Besides the aftermath of the Tai Po fire, legislators also have much long-term work laid out for them. On the one hand is the need to navigate China–US rivalry and global geopolitical turmoil, on the other is the need to better integrate into China’s overall development plans and continue to maintain Hong Kong’s special status. Hong Kong also needs to revitalize and reform its economy by utilizing the latest technological innovations, while tackling deep-seated social problems to improve people’s livelihood. The demand for capable legislators has never been greater. All 161 candidates have demonstrated their qualifications and visions for the coming four-year term, and it is up to the voters to decide which ones are most suitable for their own best interests and those of Hong Kong as a whole.
Just as Hong Kongers have come together to show support for victims of the fire, they will come together to show their support for a better tomorrow with their votes. This great city has gone through many periods of great hardship in its history—from the brutalities of World War II to the financial crisis of 1997 and the global pandemic of recent memory—yet none has managed to crush the optimistic spirit of its people, and Hong Kong has emerged from each one more confident and prosperous than ever. As its citizens turn out to cast their votes tomorrow, we have every reason to believe in a brighter future for Hong Kong.
InsightSpeak
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
Qing Ping
After Jimmy Lai was lawfully convicted by the High Court of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region for crimes including colluding with foreign forces and conspiring to publish seditious publication, some politicians in the United States and the West disregarded the facts, spreading false narratives such as "political prisoner" and "political prosecution." Such claims not only violate the fundamental principles of international law but also completely contradict the facts of the case and legal provisions. In reality, Jimmy Lai's actions seriously violated the Hong Kong National Security Law and local Hong Kong laws. His crimes are criminal offenses endangering national security, not "political dissent." The trial of his case represents the legitimate actions of Hong Kong's judicial authorities in safeguarding national security in accordance with the law, fully aligning with the fundamental principles of international law and standards of judicial justice.
Due to varying differences in ideology, political systems, laws, and policies among countries, there is no clear and unified standard for defining the concept of "political prisoner" in international law. However, through long-term international practice and academic consensus, basic criteria and exclusions have emerged. The definition of "political prisoner" revolves around two core principles: "peaceful expression" and "no harm to national security." Its application must satisfy two key conditions: first, the actions must be based on the expression of political beliefs and must not involve violence; second, they must not severely endanger national security, public interests, or the lawful rights and interests of others, exhibiting clear "altruistic" and "peaceful" characteristics. Actions such as endangering national security and colluding with foreign forces have long been excluded by the international community from the category of "political prisoners."
Jimmy Lai's actions are entirely inconsistent with the core connotations of a "political prisoner."
In terms of the nature of his actions, Jimmy Lai's conduct was not "peaceful political expression" but rather criminal acts seriously endangering national security. The core feature of a "political prisoner" is the peaceful expression of political beliefs without harming national security, public interests, or the lawful rights of others. In contrast, Jimmy Lai's collusion with foreign forces, as stipulated in Article 29 of the Hong Kong National Security Law, constitutes a serious crime such as "imposing sanction or blockade, or engaging in other hostile activities against the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region or the People's Republic of China." This directly infringes upon national sovereignty, security, and development interests, undermines Hong Kongs prosperity and stability, and completely deviates from the "peaceful" and "altruistic" characteristics of a "political prisoner." Such actions would be classified as criminal offenses in any country and are far from so-called "political dissent."
From the perspective of international law exclusion rules, Jimmy Lai's crimes fall outside the category of "political prisoners." His acts of colluding with foreign forces and endangering national security meet the constituent elements of crimes under the Hong Kong National Security Law, clearly excluding him from the "political prisoner" category. Moreover, foreign forces nurturing Jimmy Lai as an agent to oppose China and destabilize Hong Kong, and funding activities to disrupt Hong Kong, violate the fundamental international law principle of "non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries." Acts such as treason and collusion with foreign forces are universally and severely targeted by criminal laws across nations and are by no means so-called "political prosecutions."
In terms of judicial procedures, the trial of Jimmy Lai's case was completely fair, just, and transparent, with no political motives involved. The Hong Kong National Security Law explicitly guarantees litigation the right to fair trials and the right to defense, and the trial of Jimmy Lai's case strictly adhered to these provisions. The court proceedings were entirely open, with Jimmy Lai himself testifying for 52 days. He enjoyed full defense rights, all parties had legal representation, and no party raised issues of unfair treatment. The court ultimately issued a publicly available 855-page judgment detailing the application of law and evidence analysis, fully complying with Hong Kongs common law judicial procedures. The so-called "political prosecution" narrative is both a deliberate smear against the independence of Hong Kongs judiciary and a disregard for the principles of judicial justice in international law.
Using the concept of "political prisoner" to recklessly interfere in the internal affairs of other countries is shameless and despicable.
The original intent of establishing the concept of "political prisoner" in international law was to provide humanitarian protection for individuals who have committed crimes but possess legitimate political purposes, shielding them from persecution while safeguarding the sovereign interests of nations. At the same time, every country has the right to combat crimes endangering national security, a legitimate right that no external forces should interfere with or smear.
However, a few countries, groups, or individuals, to achieve ulterior political motives, exploit the ambiguous concept of "political prisoner" to exonerate their political agents. Under the guise of "human rights" "democracy" and "freedom" they recklessly interfere in the internal affairs of other countries and hinder the independent exercise of judicial power. This despicable conduct has long been seen through by people around the world and is destined to face firm opposition and complete failure, ultimately being condemned to the pillar of historical shame.
Safeguarding national sovereignty, security, and development interests is the highest principle of the "one country, two systems" policy. Any attempt to portray Jimmy Lai as a "political prisoner" or distort the lawful trial as a "political prosecution" is a deliberate distortion of facts and a blatant disregard for international rules. The implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law and the fair trial of related cases are not only essential requirements for safeguarding national sovereignty, security, and development interests but also a cornerstone for protecting the lawful rights and interests of Hong Kong residents and ensuring long-term stability and prosperity in Hong Kong. This is beyond dispute.
