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. **

We are living inside One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest — and Washington is running the ward. The leader of the world's most powerful nation produces a fresh justification for war every single day. The lies cycle so fast that we have grown numb to them, and we begin to ask the more disturbing question: Are they mentally abnormal? Or are we?

Since the United States launched its war against Iran on 28 February, the administration has repeatedly rewritten the stated justification for a conflict it entered without legal standing. At a press conference on 2 March, Secretary of State Marco Rubio claimed the US launched military strikes against Iran because Israel was about to strike first, and Washington feared Iranian retaliation on the U.S. — so it decided to pre-empt. By invoking self-defence, Rubio was attempting, however clumsily, to frame the assault as compliant with the UN Charter, forcing the argument that the US faced an "imminent threat".

Trump, however, found that version too meek. Eager to claim credit for what he called a successful campaign, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on 3 March that he personally pushed Israel to act against Iran — reasoning that if Israel did not move first, Iran would.

Within hours of Trump's remarks, Rubio reversed course entirely. His new version: Trump struck Iran after concluding that US-Iran nuclear negotiations would not succeed — and Israel's action plan had nothing to do with it.

When the Story Changes Daily

CNN put it plainly: the rotating statements from White House officials exposed a government capable only of concocting shoddy justifications for war. In fewer than ten days, the Trump administration produced at least four different explanations for how Iran constituted an "imminent threat" — two of which directly contradicted each other.

Set that American farce aside and turn the camera to China. On the eve of the annual "Two Sessions" — the plenary meetings of the National People's Congress (NPC) and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) — CPPCC spokesperson Liu Jieyi addressed China's diplomatic priorities at a press conference on 3 March. He observed that the world today is undergoing profound changes unseen in a century at an accelerating pace, with the international situation marked by turbulence and entanglement, and global challenges growing ever more acute. Liu stated that China has always been the "most stable, most reliable, and most constructive" force in a turbulent world.

Those few words from Liu Jieyi capture the China-US contrast precisely. China's role as the world's most stabilising force is visible across three concrete dimensions.

First — The Economic Ballast

Despite the Trump administration's global trade war last year, the Chinese economy demonstrated remarkable resilience, maintaining 5% growth. China's total economic output crossed the new threshold of 140 trillion yuan, with its growth rate remaining among the highest of the world's major economies. China's 5% growth contributed 30% of global expansion, making it the single largest engine of world economic growth. The United States, by contrast, both restrained the economic growth of many nations through its tariff war and undermined itself in the process — America's growth last year is estimated at only around 2%, well below the global average of 3.2%, effectively dragging that average down.

Second — The Diplomatic Stabiliser

Since taking office, the Trump administration launched a first war against Iran in June last year in coordination with Israel — bombing targets across the country, particularly its nuclear facilities. Then, in February this year, it launched a war against Venezuela, abducting President Nicolás Maduro. At the end of February, it struck Iran again, killing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Make no mistake: Trump still has the audacity to set up a peace commission. The reality is that the United States not only wages outright wars, but serves as the principal behind-the-scenes instigator of multiple regional conflicts around the world.

China, by contrast, has not been involved in a single external war since 1979. Even when disputes arise with other nations, China seeks resolution through peaceful means. The Global Security Initiative put forward by China has already received the support of more than 130 countries and international or regional organisations. China's consistent stance of urging dialogue and reconciliation stands in direct contrast to America's trigger-happy resort to military force.

Third — The Engine of Openness

The United States is practising a "new Monroe Doctrine" — pursuing an isolationist path in the name of American interests, placing self-interest first, sharply hiking tariffs on other nations. This self-serving posture has drawn widespread criticism globally. Washington has even compelled several allied nations to make massive investments on American soil — a brazenly extractive form of conduct.

China, by contrast, has granted comprehensive tariff-free access to imports from the vast majority of developing nations — particularly African countries. China has also extended visa-free entry to a growing number of countries; last year, the number of foreign visitors entering China visa-free rose 75.6% year-on-year. One side is closed and extractive; the other is open and mutually beneficial — the contrast could not be more apparent.

The Counterweight the World Needs

When the world is full of madness, the voice of reason may not always command the spotlight. But if we still believe that rationality exists in this world, then everyone will ultimately find a way through this predicament — and China, as a stabilising force in a turbulent world, will become the counterweight against America's disruptive tide.

Lo Wing-hung