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. **

In today's America, there's a yawning gap between what politicians say and what businesspeople actually do. US political circles remain thick with doom-and-gloom talk about Hong Kong. Many still cling to the narrative that "Hong Kong is dead." But look at what American companies are actually doing on the ground, and you'll see the story politicians tell bears little resemblance to reality.

The American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong ran a survey from November through January, polling senior representatives from 450 US corporate members about Hong Kong's business prospects. With a 25% response rate, the findings carry real weight.

Optimism Surges 20 Points

According to the AmCham survey, 53% of American companies now feel "very optimistic" or "optimistic" about Hong Kong's business environment over the next 12 months—a dramatic 20-percentage-point leap year-on-year.

The assessment of the past year's business climate is an even more striking reversal. In 2024, 37% of US firms rated Hong Kong's operating environment "very good" or "good," while 42% judged it "not very good" or "poor"—a net negative of 5%.

Fast-forward one year. The share of US businesses rating last year's environment "very good" or "good" climbed 7 points to 44%. Those calling it "not very good" or "poor" plunged 15 points to 27%. That's a complete turnaround: a net positive of 17 percentage points. American businesses have fundamentally reversed their view of Hong Kong's operating climate.

Staying Put — and Confident

When it comes to future plans, US companies with no intention of relocating their headquarters over the next three years surged 13 percentage points to 92%. As for Hong Kong's rule of law—relentlessly attacked by the US government—94% of respondents expressed being "very confident," "confident," or "relatively confident," up from 83% a year earlier and 79% the year before. Only 6% reported insufficient confidence, an 11-point drop from the prior year.

On the more sensitive question of the National Security Law and its impact on their business environment, 74% said they experienced no negative effect. Only 26% reported adverse impacts—and even that negative share dropped 4 percentage points from the previous year.

Overall, the AmCham survey paints a strikingly positive picture. Most respondents not only shrug off concerns about the National Security Law's impact on the local business climate—they're downright optimistic about Hong Kong's future operating environment.

Remember what happened over a year ago when Hong Kong filmed a tourism promotional video featuring AmCham members? The member who participated in the film faced trouble the moment he returned to the United States. The video was entirely non-political, purely about tourism. Yet anti-China lawmakers summoned the AmCham member for Congressional questioning, creating a firestorm of hassle. That's American freedom of speech in action. In anonymous surveys, American businesspeople tend to speak far more honestly.

The key takeaway? American businesspeople are casting their votes for Hong Kong with their feet—staying put, continuing to invest, and betting on Hong Kong's future prospects.

Saying No, Acting Yes

Western forces led by the United States have recently seized on Hong Kong's national security cases to relentlessly attack the "One Country, Two Systems" framework. But they're "saying no to Hong Kong with their mouths while being brutally honest with their bodies"—some badmouth Hong Kong while others quietly invest and rake in profits there.

Meanwhile, the Central Government consistently implements its One Country, Two Systems policy toward Hong Kong. On one hand, it backs Hong Kong's enforcement of the National Security Law, creating a peaceful and stable business environment and curbing political unrest. On the other hand, Hong Kong maintains its rule of law traditions, allowing foreign investors to do business confidently without fear of unfair treatment.

Looking back at Hong Kong's economic data from last year, the performance was genuinely impressive. Hong Kong's GDP expanded 3.5%. External merchandise trade jumped 15.4% to a record HK$5.24 trillion. Visitor arrivals hit 49.9 million, up 12% year-on-year. The Hang Seng Index climbed 27.8%. And Hong Kong's IPO scale tripled year-on-year, claiming the top spot among global exchanges.

Hong Kong's free economic system and vibrant economic activities are drawing increasing numbers of foreign companies—including American firms. In 2025, the number of foreign-funded companies with offices in Hong Kong reached 11,070, up 11% year-on-year, setting a historic record. The evidence is clear: Hong Kong remains a magnet for foreign investment and an exceptional place for free enterprise.

Lo Wing-hung