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.
InsightSpeak
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
Leung Ngar-ki, a member of Chinese Association of Hong Kong & Macao Studies
On 15 December 2025, the Court of First Instance of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region delivered its final verdict: Jimmy Lai was found guilty on two counts of conspiracy to collude with foreign or external forces to endanger national security, and one count of conspiracy to publish seditious publications. The 855-page judgment explicitly stated his testimony was "inconsistent, evasive and not credible". Confronted with the prosecution's comprehensive chain of evidence presented in an 860-page written closing argument, comprising 2,222 items of evidence and over 80,000 pages of trial records, alongside irrefutable testimony from six former Apple Daily executives who pleaded guilty in the same case, the lies of this anti-China, pro-Hong Kong chaos instigator were exposed one by one. He has become an "absurd and despicable liar" despised by all Hong Kong citizens.
"Analysing the situation" became "stating facts", with contradictory statements on sanctions backfiring. In earlier live broadcasts, Jimmy Lai brazenly called on Germany, Australia, Canada and others to ally with the US in sanctioning China. He even boasted that "war threats" would cause "businessmen to suspend investment in China, putting its economy at risk of collapse", describing Hong Kong as a pawn for the West to counterbalance China. Yet when questioned about this in court, he immediately backtracked, claiming he was merely "analysing the global situation" and certainly not advocating sanctions. More outrageously, during a dialogue with the former chair of the American Institute in Taiwan, he extensively discussed "Taiwan's security dependence on the US" and "Taiwan being an excellent lever... the US and all free world nations must jointly support preserving Taiwan's status." Yet in court, he defended this as merely "stating facts that have already occurred," denying any advocacy for a "US-Taiwan alliance." His legal assistant, Wayland Chan Tsz-wah, directly testified that "without Jimmy Lai, there would be no political connections in the US and elsewhere to unify international efforts towards sanctions," accusing Lai of seeking foreign sanctions to precipitate China's political and economic collapse. Lai had allegedly boasted that "China's GDP would plummet by 40%, presenting the perfect opportunity to introduce American-style democracy." While actively stoking the flames by calling for foreign intervention, he vehemently denied soliciting hostile actions. This self-contradictory sophistry crumbled before audio-visual evidence and witness testimony.
"Forgotten" became his catchphrase, while the mastermind turned into a hands-off manager – utterly preposterous. During his court defence, Jimmy Lai frequently suffered "memory lapses," responding to multiple critical questions with "I don't know," "I don't recall," or "I'm not familiar with." Even when the prosecution presented meticulously organised evidence tables following a timeline, he claimed amnesia about his communications with former senior staff of Apple Daily. The testimony of Next Media's former Chief Executive, Cheung Kim-hung, directly exposed these falsehoods. Jimmy Lai was the founder and "helmsman" of Apple Daily, as well as the supreme leader and ultimate decision-maker of the Next Media Group. He dictated editorial and publishing policies, directing editorial direction through "lunchbox meetings". Following the 2014 illegal Occupy Central movement, he transformed the newspaper into a bastion of "anti-government and anti-central authority" sentiment. Former Apple Daily Deputy Publisher Chan Pui-man further testified that his management style was "so overbearing that no one dared refuse", and after the 2019 Legislative Council riots, he explicitly ordered "the public must be persuaded to support the protest movement". Yet in court, Jimmy Lai feigned ignorance, claiming his directives were "merely suggestions, not coercion," attempting to downplay his editorial responsibility. This charade of "masterminding while feigning amnesia" treats the courtroom as a stage, constituting a blatant disregard for the dignity of the law.
"Opposing violence" while condoning it: editorial directives expose true intentions. Jimmy Lai repeatedly professes his stance against violence, claiming articles were "heartfelt" reflections of reality. Yet trial evidence reveals that during the 2019 extradition bill protests, he issued editorial directives instructing staff to report with "sympathy" on young people storming the Legislative Council. He even messaged pan-democrats inquiring about "follow-up actions to sustain the protests." More ironically, while urging Hong Kongers to "lobby for international support," he denied inciting hatred against the government. He admitted hoping to force the SAR government to compromise through "numbers and momentum," yet claimed no incitement intent. This double standard of "saying one thing and doing another" exposed his true role in using the media to fan the flames and condone violence.
His "unaware" stance swiftly transformed into "strong support," yet colluding with external falsehoods proved untenable. Confronted with evidence of his ties to the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC) and the Stand with Hong Kong Team (SWHK), Jimmy Lai initially falsely claimed "no knowledge of these organisations," only for social media posts to directly contradict him. Posts on Apple Daily and Jimmy Lai's personal social media accounts reveal his repeated public endorsement of IPAC, expressing strong support for its advocated "sanctions". Not only did Jimmy Lai establish an overseas network through his personal assistant, former CIA agent Mark Simon, frequently travelling to the US to meet politicians including then-Vice President Mike Pence and then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to plead for "sanctions" against the Chinese government and the Hong Kong SAR government, he also instructed Apple Daily executives to compile a "sanctions list", and even after the Hong Kong National Security Law came into effect, he continued to declare he would "go all the way, no turning back." Yet in court, he argued he "was not requesting sanctions." Such contradictory justifications, exposed by cross-border lobbying communications and witness testimony, have become utterly laughable.
The rule of law has ultimately exposed these falsehoods, and those who oppose China and disrupt Hong Kong cannot escape justice. Jimmy Lai's conduct during the trial could be described as a veritable "record of lies." From his inconsistent statements on sanctions, to the tired ploy of feigning amnesia, to his outright denial of colluding with external forces, each contradiction was exposed by irrefutable evidence. The rule of law is Hong Kong's core value and a vital cornerstone for the steady and enduring implementation of "one country, two systems". The 855-page judgment and overwhelming evidence not only substantiated Jimmy Lai's multiple offences but also exposed the deceitful nature concealed beneath his masks as a "democratic fighter" and "guardian of journalism". The dignity of Hong Kong's rule of law shall not be transgressed. National security and Hong Kong's fundamental interests shall be robustly safeguarded under the steadfast protection of the law.
