In a world rife with double standards, it is crucial to speak up against injustices. Silence only reinforces the notion that others are entirely right, while you are completely wrong.
During his recent visit to China, UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy held discussions with Chinese State Councillor Ding Xuexiang and Foreign Minister Wang Yi. Upon his return to the UK, Lammy was heavily questioned in Parliament by the opposition Conservative Party. Former Conservative Party leader Iain Duncan Smith demanded to know whether Lammy had condemned or pressured China on issues such as the Jimmy Lai case. Under this pressure, Lammy declared that the trial of Jimmy Lai, human rights in Xinjiang, and the Taiwan Strait situation are significant concerns for the UK.
On November 11, Jimmy Lai’s youngest son, Sebastien Lai, posted a photo of his meeting with Lammy on social media, urging the UK government to pressure for his father's release. Lammy swiftly echoed this call, asserting that the Jimmy Lai case remains a priority for the UK and pledging to “continue advocating for Jimmy Lai’s immediate release.”
Jimmy Lai stands accused under Hong Kong’s National Security Law of colluding with foreign forces. Even while the case undergoes judicial proceedings, foreign entities have exerted undue pressure, flagrantly undermining Hong Kong's rule of law.
Sebastien Lai and the so-called "International Legal Team for Jimmy Lai"—whose legitimacy has been refuted by Lai’s official legal representatives in Hong Kong—have been actively lobbying in the UK and beyond. On November 20, when Jimmy Lai is due to testify, this “legal team” and Sebastien Lai plan to hold a press conference in Washington, D.C., led by British barrister Caoilfhionn Gallagher. Their objective is clear: to exert political pressure on Hong Kong authorities to secure Lai’s release.
Rationally, their efforts should focus on ensuring a fair trial for Lai—something Hong Kong is committed to upholding. Yet their demand for his unconditional release is entirely political, leveraging foreign influence to force Hong Kong to abandon its judicial process.
Firstly, such interference blatantly contradicts the West’s avowed principles of rule of law and respect for Hong Kong’s “high degree of autonomy.” Sebastien Lai has yet to present evidence of any judicial unfairness in Hong Kong toward his father. Furthermore, Western critics who claim to defend Hong Kong's autonomy now paradoxically call on the UK to pressure Beijing into intervening in Hong Kong’s legal system. Were Beijing to interfere and halt the trial, it would indeed compromise Hong Kong's judicial independence. This hypocrisy exposes the inconsistency of the West’s proclaimed values.
Secondly, the UK’s strict approach to offenses related to incitement makes its criticism of Hong Kong appear even more unjustified. Consider the case of Wayne O'Rourke, a 35-year-old arrested amid anti-immigrant riots in August this year, during which over 1,100 people were detained. British authorities swiftly prosecuted and imprisoned numerous individuals for incitement or related charges. O'Rourke who was accused of publishing written material on social media, “stirring up racial hate” following misinformation about a stabbing incident in Southport. He was sentenced to three years in prison.
O'Rourke’s social media profile reads: “I love my country, right-wing, stop the boats, Brexit, Boris Johnson, Trump, God save the UK, vote for reform.” In another setting, such as the United States, he might have secured a government role, but in the UK, he landed in prison.
If Britain insists that Hong Kong release Jimmy Lai, then Hong Kong has equal grounds to demand the release of O'Rourke. Despite O'Rourke's minimal influence, he has been imprisoned for stirring up racial hate. Jimmy Lai, a media tycoon with far-reaching influence, stands accused of more severe offenses. Why should Hong Kong be denied the right to prosecute him?
The new Labour government in the UK has expressed a desire to strengthen relations with China and promote economic cooperation. Yet, when faced with domestic criticism, it retreats into performative posturing on so-called human rights issues. This inconsistency raises doubts about the Labour government’s ability to achieve substantial progress.
Lo Wing-hung
Bastille Commentary
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
The recent case involving "Second-Generation Captain America" Ma Chun Man, who applied to the Commissioner of Correctional Services for a jail time reduction, only to have his request rejected and a judicial review subsequently denied by the court, has attracted significant attention.
Under the revised Prison Rules, the Correctional Services Commissioner concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish that releasing Ma Chun Man early would not pose a risk to national security. Moreover, it remained uncertain whether Ma, if released early, would re-offend by committing further crimes that jeopardize national security. As a result, his request was denied. After consideration, Judge Li Yunting, designated under the National Security Law, determined that there were no procedural violations on the part of the Correctional Services Commissioner, and dismissed the judicial review.
Professor Johannes Chan, former Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Hong Kong and now residing in the UK, published an article in a local newspaper commenting on the judicial review in the Ma Junwen case. In his article, he referenced Ma’s psychological assessment, noting that Ma exhibited an introverted personality, lacked friends, lived a monotonous life, and had no clear life goals. However, the report found no significant psychological or learning difficulties. Regarding his crime, Ma demonstrated no evident remorse and had previously written inflammatory slogans while incarcerated, leading to his isolation for several months. In his petition to the authorities, Ma stated, “I realize that the current environment in Hong Kong makes resistance impossible, and I must accept reality.”
Professor Chan argued that if the criterion for evaluating Ma’s early release is whether there is sufficient evidence to prove it would "harm national security," the evidence appears ambiguous and fails to conclusively support such a conclusion. However, under the National Security Law, the evaluation criterion shifts to whether the evidence is sufficient to exclude the possibility that early release would "not harm national security." This negative framing of the issue fundamentally alters the conclusion, which Professor Chen views as unjust.
The issue can be analyzed from several perspectives:
First, Conceptual Distortion.
The Correctional Services Commissioner, when determining whether a prisoner is eligible for early release based on good behavior, exercises discretion in assessing whether releasing the prisoner poses a risk of reoffending. This is an administrative decision, not an inherent right of the prisoner. However, opposition groups have distorted this concept, equating the government's discretionary authority with the prisoner’s right to early release. The amendments made following the enactment of the National Security Law clearly stipulate that prisoners convicted of national security offenses cannot be considered for parole unless the Commissioner is convinced that early release would not jeopardize national security. These amendments have prompted challenges from those convicted of national security offenses.
For instance, in the case of HKU student union leader Kinson Cheung, who led a silent protest following a police stabbing incident, his application for early parole was denied. He then sought an injunction from the court to protect his personal freedom. An injunction is designed to prevent unlawful or unjust detention. In Cheung's case, the court rejected his application and upheld the government’s decision. This was a clear rejection of the distorted interpretation of discretionary parole, reaffirming that early release is not an unassailable right. Professor Chan’s commentary follows the same flawed reasoning.
Second, the Need to Safeguard National Security.
In the Ma Chun Man case, the court clearly pointed out that the legislative intent behind the amendments to the Prison Rules and related laws is to impose stricter conditions on the early release of prisoners convicted of national security offenses. These amendments ensure that early release is only considered if it does not pose a risk to national security. The court affirmed that these amendments serve to protect national security and safeguard the public.
In Ma’s case, his actions—such as writing inflammatory slogans in prison—clearly indicated that releasing him early could lead to reoffending, further jeopardizing national security. This is not, as Professor Chan suggests, an ambiguous situation. The evidence of potential harm to national security is clear.
Third, Clarity of Concepts.
Professor Chan claims that "national security is an ambiguous concept that today encompasses almost everything," and he compares those who distribute leaflets or shout slogans in the streets to individuals convicted of violent crimes such as rape or terrorism. While such a statement may be understandable coming from someone unfamiliar with the law, it is misleading coming from a law professor. The harm caused by individuals who incite subversion of the government through propaganda and public demonstrations is significant. While it may be difficult to quantify whether such individuals are more dangerous than violent criminals, both represent serious threats—one to national security, the other to public safety.
The court ruling in the Ma Chun Man case clarified that the standard for determining whether early release "would not harm national security" is neither vague nor arbitrary. It is clear, precise, and provides sufficient guidance for prisoners to understand the behavior required for early release consideration. The court affirmed that the Commissioner’s decision was both legal and reasonable.
As for Professor Chan’s claim that national security is a vague concept, this is simply a misinformed opinion. Both the Hong Kong National Security Law and the Public Security Ordinance list specific offenses with clear definitions. The court does not have the discretion to arbitrarily decide whether someone violates national security laws. Criticizing the law as vague reflects a lack of understanding and is more of an ill-informed street-level opinion than a legal critique from someone in an academic position.
Fourth, Professor Chen Should Flee the UK.
The national security laws in the UK, where Professor Chan currently resides, are even stricter than those in Hong Kong. Notably, the UK has a "foreign registration system," which Hong Kong does not. During the UK’s recent riots, UK courts swiftly convicted individuals who merely posted comments on social media. For example, 35-year-old Wayne O'Rourke was sentenced to three years in prison for inciting violence after urging people to take to the streets. It is unclear whether Professor Chan views these UK laws and rulings as incompatible with civil society. If so, he should not only flee Hong Kong but also leave the UK, embarking on a search for his ideal civil society elsewhere.
Wing-hung Lo
