Chan Kayu
On February 9, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region High Court sentenced Jimmy Lai to 20 years in prison for two counts of conspiring to collude with foreign forces and one count of conspiring to publish seditious publications. The Wall Street Journal, a long-time supporter of Jimmy Lai, promptly published an opinion piece titled “Jimmy Lai Gets a Death Sentence.” Setting aside the misleading headline, what caught the author's attention was the article's mention that five U.S. congressmen have nominated Jimmy Lai for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize, stating that “no one deserves this award more than him.”
In my observation, this isn't the first time U.S. lawmakers have campaigned for Jimmy Lai's Nobel Peace Prize nomination. Yet despite annual nominations ending in failure, they persist with unwavering enthusiasm. This “relentless” stance invites reflection: What value does Jimmy Lai truly hold that warrants such “persistence”?
Driven by immense curiosity, the author investigated the source of these nominations—the website of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC). What emerged was a bittersweet revelation: the “honorable” U.S. lawmakers have never taken Jimmy Lai seriously! Their campaign for a Nobel Peace Prize for him is nothing short of an international farce! Why?
First, the nomination content remains utterly unoriginal year after year. In introductions typically under 200 words, U.S. lawmakers consistently describe Jimmy Lai using hollow phrases like “founder of Apple Daily” and “critic of the government.” The 2023 introduction, at a mere 48 words, was half as long as the one for Joshua Wong. This year saw a slight addition of hollow praise like “a global symbol of nonviolent resistance against authoritarianism” or “upholding peace, democracy, and the rule of law through free media.” Yet the writing remains as sloppy and perfunctory as ever, as if merely going through the motions to fulfill some obligation. This half-hearted approach is less an expression of “support” for Jimmy Lai and more a political performance and routine gesture.
Second, the number of co-signers is meager, and the same few individuals repeatedly appear. With over 500 members in the U.S. Congress, only 2 to 5 participated in nominating Jimmy Lai. Take 2024 as an example: only Christopher H. Smith and Jeffrey A. Merkley co-signed. In other years, it was mostly politicians like James P. McGovern and John Moolenaar, who have long held anti-China stances. More ironically, as long as the nomination list includes one Democratic and one Republican lawmaker, these politicians dare to claim the move represents a “bipartisan consensus.” This tactic of packaging the collusion of individuals as the opinion of the majority is undoubtedly a mockery of democratic procedures.
Most crucially, the nomination timing has repeatedly and deliberately missed the Nobel Peace Prize nomination deadline. According to the Nobel Peace Prize nomination rules, January 31st of each year is the deadline for nominating candidates for that year. As seasoned politicians, these prominent members of Congress should be well aware of this rule. Yet upon review, it was found that with the exception of 2024, all nominations by U.S. lawmakers for Jimmy Lai were submitted after the respective deadlines (e.g., the 2023 nomination was made on February 2, and the 2026 nomination on February 4). Anyone with basic knowledge understands this means such nominations are fundamentally ineligible for the award in the year they are submitted. This deliberate act of “late nomination” inevitably raises questions: Are these politicians genuinely “seeking honor” for Jimmy Lai, or are they using nominations as a pretext to interfere in China's internal affairs?
This annual nomination farce exposes the hypocrisy and impotence of certain Western powers' China strategy. The Nobel Peace Prize has extremely low nomination thresholds—university presidents and professors across disciplines can participate—yet even so, Jimmy Lai's nomination is treated with such carelessness. This inevitably raises the question: If Western politicians cannot even manage a symbolic award with proper diligence, how can they be expected to exert genuine pressure for “releasing Jimmy Lai”? Their support likely extends no further than mere “solidarity.” For Jimmy Lai and his supporters to still fantasize about external forces securing their acquittal is nothing short of wishful thinking. Wake up!
InsightSpeak
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
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.
