Secretary for Security Chris Tang Ping-keung stated that the court’s conviction and sentencing in the Jimmy Lai case uphold legal justice and protect Hong Kong’s core values. He emphasized that the law absolutely does not tolerate any criminal acts that openly harm the country and its people or endanger national security, adding that Hong Kong is a society governed by law where no one is above it.
Speaking to the media, Tang noted that the court’s judgment pointed out that Jimmy Lai had long sought the downfall of the Chinese Communist Party, and the ruling upholds justice and safeguards Hong Kong’s core values. He highlighted that the court considered his crimes extremely serious and deserving of severe punishment, as Lai and his associates continued to spread false information and fake news, and even glorified and incited violence after the enactment of the National Security Law, triggering a “Hong Kong version of color revolution.” Many young people were misled and committed inhumane acts such as arson and assault during the “black violence” period. Some even plotted terrorist activities and made bombs, leading to their eventual imprisonment.
Tang stressed that allegations of “political prosecution” were completely unfounded, and the case had nothing to do with press freedom. He reiterated that the law does not tolerate any criminal acts that openly harm the country and its people or endanger national security, emphasizing that Hong Kong is a rule-of-law society where no one is above the law. He also criticized the U.S., Western countries, anti-China media, politicians, and some international organizations for labeling the case a “political prosecution,” deliberately conflating criminal acts with press freedom, and attempting to whitewash Lai’s image and evoke sympathy while demanding his release on health grounds.
Regarding follow-up actions, Tang said that since the court has passed its sentence, the Hong Kong SAR government will apply to the court for a confiscation order at an appropriate time to seize crime proceeds related to the offenses. The government will also initiate procedures to remove the three Apple Daily-related companies from the Companies Registry as soon as possible.
Tang pointed out that the court made it clear that the crimes involved in the case were severe, and the 20-year sentence reflects the gravity of the offenses. He also stated that Jimmy Lai is a Chinese citizen who committed crimes in China’s Hong Kong, and serving his sentence in China’s Hong Kong is entirely reasonable.
Additionally, Tang posted on social media that the 20-year sentence “finally restores justice for Hong Kong people.” Regarding the social division caused and the indelible pain experienced by Hong Kong residents, he said, “Even today, it still pains me every time I mention it.” He described Jimmy Lai as the mastermind in the case, having controlled the media for years, and not only seeking to overthrow the government but also colluding with external forces to lobby for sanctions, incite hatred, and mislead the public, causing immense harm to society. Tang stated that the severe punishment was well-deserved.
Tang also remarked that external forces’ claims of “political prosecution” were entirely baseless. The court’s earlier judgment clearly stated that the prosecution and verdict were not based on his political views or beliefs. On the contrary, external forces’ attempts to use his political background and false health reasons to demand early release directly undermine the core of Hong Kong’s rule of law.
Cui Jianchun, commissioner of the Chinese Foreign Ministry in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), on Sunday published an op-ed article on the verdict of Jimmy Lai's case in the local newspaper South China Morning Post titled "Jimmy Lai case shows the world HK's commitment to rule of law."
On December 15, Jimmy Lai Chee-yingwas found guilty on two charges of conspiring to collude with external forces and a charge of conspiracy to publish seditious materials by the High Court of Hong Kong.
The verdict was welcomed in the city and, as expected, prompted another round of outcries from some Western countries. As Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, I feel obliged to set the record straight and reaffirm our commitment to the rule of law.
First, why was Lai convicted? Putting on a thin veneer of journalistic professionalism, he deeply involved himself in and even masterminded a series of anti-China incidents, as proved by the evidence presented during the trial.
Jimmy Lai case shows the world HK's commitment to rule of law.
Acting as a proxy for external anti-China forces, Lai abused his media influence to incite social hatred and confrontation, actively promoted violent unrest and played a central role behind the 2019 “black violence” in Hong Kong.He openly pleaded with foreign powers toimpose sanctions on China and Hong Kong. Such actions seriously endangered national security, severely harmed Hong Kong’s social stability and inflicted lasting trauma on its citizens. It was therefore not only necessary but imperative for him to face legal consequences.
In any jurisdiction, Lai’s actions would constitute serious criminal offences. To draw a parallel: if someone from a Western country used his influence to incite violence against his own government, colluded with foreign officials and called for sanctions to be imposed against his own nation, would that country’s judicial system allow such behaviourto go unpunished? The answer is obvious.
Second, was Lai treated unfairly? Absolutely not. He received a trial conducted in strict accordance with the law, during which his legal rights were fully safeguarded. Hong Kong’s judicial process is fair, transparent and adheres rigorously to legal procedures. The publicly available court records confirm that due process was meticulously followed at every stage.
Office of the Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
As for his treatment in detention, the facts are clear. Hong Kong’s Correctional Services Department has provided him withappropriate and lawful medical care throughout his custody, ensuring his well-being. Notably, Lai’s own defence lawyer stated in open court that he had not been subjected to unfair treatment. These points collectively demonstrate that Hong Kong has consistently upheld the rule of law and respected humanitarian standards throughout this case.
Third, what does the interference by some Western countries in Lai’s case reveal? Certain Western countries have openly interfered in Hong Kong’s judicial process throughout Lai’s trial,calling for his release and even threatening sanctions against judges and prosecutors who were carrying out their lawful duties. In seeking to sway judicial outcomes through political pressure, do these nations not discredit themselves, undermining the very “judicial independence” that they profess to uphold?
The irony deepens when politicians invoke “human rights” and “freedom” to criticise Hong Kong while ignoring their own countries’ legal frameworks. The United States, for instance, maintains multiple national security laws – including the National Security Act of 1947 and the USA Patriot Act. Likewise, the United Kingdom passed a heavy-handedNational Security Act two years ago.
When these countries enforce such laws, they describe them as “defending the rule of law”. Yet, when Hong Kong takes legally comparable measures to safeguard national security, the same actions are labelled as “suppressing freedom”. Is this not a clear example of double standards and a departure from the fundamental norms of international relations?
Hong Kong has now entered a new stage of pursuing sustained prosperity on the basis of social stability. A law-based, thriving and secure Hong Kong benefits not only its 7.5 million residents but also the wider international community. We warmly welcome friends from across the world to visit Hong Kong and see for themselves the vitality and stability that the rule of law protects and promotes.
