The Real "Kangaroo Court": Where Power Buys Freedom

If those with power and influence can escape imprisonment for crimes while ordinary citizens must serve time, this can hardly be called the rule of law.

On January 19, the legal year opened with a sharp reminder of what justice actually requires. Chief Justice Andrew Cheung of the Court of Final Appeal addressed foreign threats to sanction judges and the Jimmy Lai case head-on. He made it plain: threats to impose sanctions on judges, no matter how they're dressed up, are nothing more than attempts to interfere with judicial independence. "Intimidation and threats are no different from bribery and corruption, they being, in truth, two sides of the same coin. Both are means of subverting justice, and have absolutely no place in a civilised society governed by the rule of law."

Regarding the Jimmy Lai case, Cheung was equally direct. Yes, given today's geopolitical tensions, international commentary has included plenty of criticism of the prosecution, verdict, and even Hong Kong's rule of law. But any serious criticism or opposing view must be grounded in actually reading the judgment and understanding the court's reasoning. Cheung put it bluntly: "Many of us may be forgiven for growing weary of simplistic assertions that the rule of law is dead whenever a court reaches a result one finds unpalatable… It cannot be that the rule of law is alive one day, dead the next, and resurrected on the third, depending on whether the Government or another party happens to prevail in court on a particular day. Such a claim needs only to be stated to highlight how untenable it is."

Justice vs Real Injustice

Then Cheung drove straight to the heart of what real injustice looks like. Any early release of a defendant based on political reasons or the defendant's background strikes directly at the core of the rule of law. "You can imagine how unjust this situation is, because if you compare such a defendant with an ordinary nobody – someone without anyone to speak up for them, without powerful people to advocate on their behalf, to propose deals, to propose exchanges, to threaten judges on their behalf – that person must continue their trial. If you're a distinguished person, there's one law for you. If you're an ordinary person, there's another law for ordinary people. Such a society, I believe, is a deeply unjust society, one we cannot take pride in."

Cheung cut straight to the question that matters: if ordinary people who break the law must face legal sanctions, while those with power and influence who break the law can secure their release through threats to sanction judges, can such a society truly claim to uphold the rule of law?

American Politicians Rush to Support

As Jimmy Lai awaits sentencing after being convicted, American political figures have rushed to his defense. Former U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast recently met separately with Lai's daughter, Claire Lai, publicly backing Jimmy Lai. Republican Representative Mast shared photos with Claire Lai on social media, claiming that Jimmy Lai was unfairly convicted for promoting democracy in Hong Kong. He mocked Hong Kong's courts as a "kangaroo court," saying this absurd verdict once again proves to the world the incompetence of the Chinese Communist Party.

But here's what we need to ask: What relationship do these American politicians actually have with Jimmy Lai? The public knows nothing about it. Have Jimmy Lai and his family provided financial support to these politicians in exchange for their voice of support?

During the trial and in the judgment of Jimmy Lai's case, extensive evidence revealed exactly how Lai bought off foreign politicians and former officials to establish connections with the U.S. White House and Taiwan's leadership.

Take his pursuit of Tsai Ing-wen. To get close to her, Lai paid off one of Tsai's close associates, Taiwanese writer Chiang Chun-nan, having Apple Daily Taiwan pay Chiang NT$209,000 monthly. These inexplicable payments even raised suspicions from Apple Daily Taiwan's publisher, Lawrence Chen, who questioned Lai about them. Between November 2017 and March 2020, Apple Daily Taiwan paid Chiang over NT$5.8 million (approximately US$185,000).

But Lai didn't stop there. He heavily courted several former senior U.S. officials, including former U.S. Army Vice Chief of Staff Jack Keane and former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, hiring them as advisors to Tsai Ing-wen.

Lai later admitted that the fee for hiring the two as advisors for two years was US$3 million (HK$23 million). Even the court questioned why these two former U.S. officials were being paid by Lai for advising Taiwan, rather than being paid by Taiwan itself.

Beyond Media Work

The entire affair demonstrates something crucial: to advance his anti-China agenda, Lai lobbied both the U.S. and Taiwan governments to redeploy some U.S. forces stationed in Japan to Taiwan to confront the Chinese Communist Party. These actions against the nation were clearly not the work of an ordinary media figure.

To achieve his goals, Lai scattered money far and wide, paying politicians and former officials across different regions. So ask yourself: How much objectivity can these people claim when they speak out for Jimmy Lai?

The key to the rule of law, as Cheung made crystal clear, is that whether someone is an ordinary citizen or a privileged figure like Jimmy Lai, if they break the law, they must face the same legal consequence. The same standard applies to everyone – that's what the rule of law means.

The term "kangaroo court" is actually American invention. It originated in 19th-century America, when some judges held circuit courts in remote areas. These courts, which tried cases without regard for justice, became known as kangaroo courts. America's arbitrary trampling of international law – invading Venezuela and hauling President Maduro to a federal court in New York for trial – represents a true violation of the rule of law. American courts are the real "kangaroo courts."

Lo Wing-hung

Bastille Commentary

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

A political party's decline begins the moment it abandons common sense.

Britain's ruling Labour Party is moving to repair ties with China, with party leader Keir Starmer planning a visit to Beijing. But one persistent thorn in Sino-British relations remains: London's foot-dragging on approving China's proposed grand new embassy. China bought the old Royal Mint site and wants to build there, but anti-China forces have mobilized against it on all sorts of political grounds.

On January 17, opponents staged another big protest in London. The rally was basically a jamboree of "all five poisons"—not just the usual exiled Hong Kong independence activists, but Tibetan and Xinjiang independence flags flying everywhere. Naturally, no Labour MPs showed up. But Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch did—making her the highest-ranking political figure to grace such an opposition event.

Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch, who is of Nigerian descent

Missing the Bigger Picture

Hong Kong exiles in Britain seized on this for maximum propaganda value, crowing that even the Conservative Party leader came out to support them. I see it differently—as a sign of the Conservatives' decline. What politician with any real shot at becoming Britain's next Prime Minister would wade into such murky waters?

First, there are degrees to being anti-China. How does a rally opposing an embassy construction turn into a carnival featuring "all five poisons"? Having opinions about a country versus supporting independence movements within that country—these are two completely different things. For a major political figure to attend a rally plastered with propaganda for other countries' independence movements is itself highly inappropriate. Does this mean the Conservative Party backs Hong Kong independence and Tibetan independence? Don't talk to me about freedom of speech—politicians have the freedom not to attend extremist political rallies. If Chinese politicians showed up at rallies flying Northern Irish independence flags, how would the British government react?

Second, the Conservative Party lacks the presence of a governing party. According to old assumptions, we might think that with Labour's current abysmal approval ratings, the Conservatives would naturally take power next term—so they should act prudently and avoid extreme positions. But reality tells a different story. The Conservative Party has already declined to third-rate status. If Labour loses power next term, I'm afraid the Conservatives won't have a chance at governing either.

The Reform Party Surge

The ruling Labour Party's recent popularity has tanked, running neck and neck with the Conservatives. According to a poll published in January by British think tank More in Common, Conservative support stands at 21%, while Labour sits at 20%—the two parties evenly matched. But the far-right Reform Party enjoys 31% support, far ahead of both the Conservatives and Labour. If a general election were held, the Reform Party would achieve a sweeping victory. So no matter how you look at it, Badenoch doesn't have the bearing of a Prime Minister—she seems more like a radical white-left politician.

Third, major party politics must follow common sense. Many Western politicians now chase politically correct lines, doing whatever they think voters like—but these politically correct actions often violate basic common sense. For example, believing voters are anti-China, they specifically do anti-China things, but whether being anti-China actually benefits their own country is something they couldn't care less about.

Canada's 180-Degree Turn

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney recently visited China, comprehensively improving relations with Beijing. Just last year, Canada claimed "China is the greatest security threat facing Canada," but now Canada has turned 180 degrees, believing that compared to the United States, "China is a more predictable and reliable partner." Canada slashed tariffs on Chinese electric vehicle imports from 100% to 6.1%. China also relaxed restrictions on imports of Canadian canola and other agricultural products. Canada now strongly welcomes Chinese investment in electric vehicles and clean energy sectors—China-Canada economic and trade relations have rapidly risen to a very close level.

The premise for this change is naturally Canada facing deep pressure from the United States. Trump has threatened to make Canada the 51st state. Under this pressure, Canada seeks to improve relations with China to rescue its economy. After Prime Minister Carney's visit to China, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer are also queuing up to visit Beijing—all seeking to improve relations with China. In today's chaotic world, with Trump specifically bullying allies, improving relations with China has become the best way out for these Western countries. Western politicians only need sufficient common sense to find the answer in improving relations with China.

No Leadership Presence

Conservative Party leader Badenoch's attendance at an anti-China rally can only mean one thing: no matter how you look at it, she doesn't have the bearing to be British Prime Minister, nor the energy to lead Britain out of its predicament. By the way, the Conservative Party's election of an ethnic African leader is not "conservative" at all—it's actually quite radical. No wonder more conservative Britons have turned to support the far-right Reform Party.

Lo Wing-hung