Waking up on Monday morning to the news of the pro-democracy activist Jimmy Lai’s 20-year prison sentence for national security offences felt surreal. I could have easily been in his position if I hadn’t fled Hong Kong right before the implementation of the notorious national security law (NSL), under which Lai has faced the harshest penalty ever given. In fact, Lai chose to stay and stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Hong Kong in the face of an uncertain and repressive future. Now his family fears that he will die in prison.
A mix of emotions filled my mind. I was immensely disgusted by the audacity and malevolence of such punishment. This sentence has a transparently political end, but the Hong Kong and Chinese governments make no bones about it. Their sole purpose is to silence critics, and they have succeeded: civil society and domestic media, which should be the watchdogs of individual rights and government overreach, are dead silent on criticising the trial.
The so-called neutral institutions no longer hold that status. Carefully handpicked NSL judges in the Hong Kong judiciary claim in their verdict that Lai has “rabid hatred” and “deep resentment” toward the Chinese Communist party (CCP), even though he repeated that he embraces the People’s Republic of China as a country. The court also accused Apple Daily, the newspaper that Lai founded and that was critical of the CCP’s human rights records, of “poisoning the minds of his readers” and spreading “venomous assertions”. These emotionally charged terms are rare in court documents; the verdict reads more like a political statement than a legal one.
The chief executive of Hong Kong, John Lee, celebrated the effective life sentencing and described Lai’s crimes as “heinous” and “utterly despicable”. Many branches of the civil servants union united to glorify the verdict as though it were a victory for Hong Kong against foreign intervention. There is no counter-voice in the legislature, as the latest election overhaul has eliminated the possibility of opposition in the council; the last pro-democracy party disbanded last year, leaving no Hong Kong-based political group to express concern over the judgment.
The one-sided celebration of Lai’s sentencing in Hong Kong reflects the importance of what he was fighting for: the right to express oneself and the right to conscience. The pervasive political violence against the people of Hong Kong has resulted in hundreds being jailed and has silenced millions. Political consciousness is dangerous in today’s Hong Kong; you can be charged with sedition even for creating children’s books that are metaphorically critical of the regime.
I feel immensely lucky that I can wake up in a place of my choosing and write freely. I still live with restrictions and intimidation: I face an active arrest warrant from Hong Kong, I have been disinvited from events due to fears of Beijing’s reprisal, I have been denied entry to some countries (despite holding a legal visa), and I have been spied on by the Hong Kong government. But these hurdles are trivial compared with the suffering of friends still in Hong Kong, who have served years behind bars.
The situation reflects the consequences of allowing an emboldened authoritarian regime to expand its influence globally. What happens when bad actors are unpunished or even welcomed? They tend to act more aggressively. And why wouldn’t they? If the rights of the persecuted in China are seen as secondary, or even trivial, and leaders of democratic countries prioritise “repairing relationships” to navigate between major powers, then why should the CCP feel compelled to change its actions?
It appears we have entered an era where discussions about values and rights have become cheap and obsolete. Power is seen as transactional, and international politics has devolved into pure “realpolitik”. It is compelling for the UK to follow suit, but I believe we can do better. I still believe that one of Britain’s strengths lies in its foundation of liberalism and democratic values. These principles set it apart from countries such as China and are embodied by individuals such as Lai.
Given Lai’s deteriorating health, time is running out for action. In the Sino-British joint declaration of 1984, the Chinese government was obliged to uphold the rights and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong. The UK can safeguard this agreement by placing the argument for Lai’s release at the heart of UK-China relations and elevating his case to a matter of national importance. It is the strongest way for Britain to show its leadership in promoting freedom and democratic values on the world stage.
