What Jimmy Lai’s 20-Year Sentence Means for Hong Kong’s International Status |
What Jimmy Lai’s 20-Year Sentence Means for Hong Kong’s International Status
The erosion of press freedom is altering perceptions of the city as a global hub.
On February 9, a Hong Kong court sentenced media entrepreneur Jimmy Lai (Lai Chee-ying), founder of the now-defunct Apple Daily, to 20 years in prison under the National Security Law (NSL). With additional convictions, Lai may not be eligible for release until 2042, when he would be 94 years old. While not formally a life sentence, the practical effect is comparable.
Lai was convicted of publishing seditious materials and conspiring to collude with foreign forces to endanger national security. The charges stem largely from Apple Daily’s criticism of the Chinese and Hong Kong governments and its calls for the United States to impose sanctions on Hong Kong officials. Once a prominent pro-democracy newspaper, Apple Daily ceased publication in 2021.
The day after the verdict, Beijing released a white paper on national security in Hong Kong. The document, seemingly timed to coincide with the judgment, describes pro-democracy activists as “anti-China agitators” and argues that the NSL, enacted in June 2020, has restored stability after years of unrest. It also asserts that the law does not undermine judicial independence and that human rights and freedoms remain protected.
These claims merit scrutiny.
The Hong Kong Basic Law guarantees freedom of speech, and Hong Kong’s legal framework incorporates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However, the NSL occupies a superior position within Hong Kong’s legal hierarchy. Drafted and enacted in Beijing, it is applied in Hong Kong but is not subject to the same constitutional review mechanisms as locally enacted legislation. In practice, this limits the ability of Hong Kong courts to assess whether provisions of the NSL are compatible with existing rights protections.
The white paper further states that individuals exercising their rights “shall not refuse to recognize that Hong Kong is an inalienable part of the PRC” and emphasizes that freedoms are “neither infinite nor absolute.” Yet Lai’s publications largely consisted of political commentary and advocacy, including appeals for international sanctions. In many democratic jurisdictions, such expressions would fall within the scope of protected political speech.
The contrast is instructive. In Japan, for example, advocating regional independence or calling for foreign pressure on the government does not in itself constitute a criminal offense. Political expression, even when controversial, is not ordinarily treated as a threat to national security. A book titled Ryukyu Dokuritsu-ron (Ryukyu Independence Theory) has been published without legal repercussion. While traveling in Hokkaido, I saw an article in a local newspaper that supported Hokkaido’s independence.
Apple Daily, founded in 1995, operated legally through Hong Kong’s 1997 handover and for more than two decades afterward. Conduct that was not criminal under Hong Kong law prior to 2020 is now punishable under the NSL with severe penalties. This shift reflects not merely the application of a new statute, but a fundamental redefinition of the boundaries of permissible speech.
International reactions have been swift. The United States, the United Kingdom, and the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights have called for Lai’s release. Beijing has rejected such criticism as interference in China’s internal affairs.
The implications extend beyond one individual case.
Hong Kong has long positioned itself as an international city distinguished by its rule of law, open information environment, and integration with global markets. In the 2021 World Press Freedom Index compiled by Reporters Without Borders, Hong Kong ranked 80th out of 180 jurisdictions. In 2022, its ranking fell to 148th, the sharpest decline recorded in the index’s history.
Chinese authorities argue that the NSL has restored order and created a stable environment for economic development. Stability is indeed a prerequisite for prosperity. Yet for international investors and businesses, predictability and access to reliable information are equally essential. When political commentary becomes legally perilous and media outlets close under legal pressure, perceptions of transparency inevitably shift.
The question is no longer whether Hong Kong will return to the press environment that existed prior to 2020. That era has passed. The more pressing issue is how the city intends to define its international identity under the current legal framework.
If national security is interpreted in increasingly expansive terms, and political expression is correspondingly narrowed, Hong Kong may continue to function as a financial center. But its distinctiveness – long rooted in a comparatively open public sphere – will be fundamentally altered.
The case of Jimmy Lai is therefore not only about one publisher or one newspaper. It is a marker of how the balance between security and liberty has been recalibrated in Hong Kong. The long-term consequences of that recalibration will shape how the city is perceived, and valued, in the years ahead.
Get to the bottom of the story
Subscribe today and join thousands of diplomats, analysts, policy professionals and business readers who rely on The Diplomat for expert Asia-Pacific coverage.
Get unlimited access to in-depth analysis you won't find anywhere else, from South China Sea tensions to ASEAN diplomacy to India-Pakistan relations. More than 5,000 articles a year.
Unlimited articles and expert analysis
Weekly newsletter with exclusive insights
16-year archive of diplomatic coverage
Ad-free reading on all devices
Support independent journalism
Already have an account? Log in.
On February 9, a Hong Kong court sentenced media entrepreneur Jimmy Lai (Lai Chee-ying), founder of the now-defunct Apple Daily, to 20 years in prison under the National Security Law (NSL). With additional convictions, Lai may not be eligible for release until 2042, when he would be 94 years old. While not formally a life sentence, the practical effect is comparable.
Lai was convicted of publishing seditious materials and conspiring to collude with foreign forces to endanger national security. The charges stem largely from Apple Daily’s criticism of the Chinese and Hong Kong governments and its calls for the United States to impose sanctions on Hong Kong officials. Once a prominent pro-democracy newspaper, Apple Daily ceased publication in 2021.
The day after the verdict, Beijing released a white paper on national security in Hong Kong. The document, seemingly timed to coincide with the judgment, describes pro-democracy activists as “anti-China agitators” and argues that the NSL, enacted in June 2020, has restored stability after years of unrest. It also asserts that the law does not undermine judicial independence and that human rights and freedoms remain protected.
These claims merit scrutiny.
The Hong Kong Basic Law guarantees freedom of speech, and Hong Kong’s legal framework incorporates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However, the NSL occupies a superior position within Hong Kong’s legal hierarchy. Drafted and enacted in Beijing, it is applied in Hong Kong but is not subject to the same constitutional review mechanisms as locally enacted legislation. In practice, this limits the ability of Hong Kong courts to assess whether provisions of the NSL are compatible with existing rights protections.
The white paper further states that individuals exercising their rights “shall not refuse to recognize that Hong Kong is an inalienable part of the PRC” and emphasizes that freedoms are “neither infinite nor absolute.” Yet Lai’s publications largely consisted of political commentary and advocacy, including appeals for international sanctions. In many democratic jurisdictions, such expressions would fall within the scope of protected political speech.
The contrast is instructive. In Japan, for example, advocating regional independence or calling for foreign pressure on the government does not in itself constitute a criminal offense. Political expression, even when controversial, is not ordinarily treated as a threat to national security. A book titled Ryukyu Dokuritsu-ron (Ryukyu Independence Theory) has been published without legal repercussion. While traveling in Hokkaido, I saw an article in a local newspaper that supported Hokkaido’s independence.
Apple Daily, founded in 1995, operated legally through Hong Kong’s 1997 handover and for more than two decades afterward. Conduct that was not criminal under Hong Kong law prior to 2020 is now punishable under the NSL with severe penalties. This shift reflects not merely the application of a new statute, but a fundamental redefinition of the boundaries of permissible speech.
International reactions have been swift. The United States, the United Kingdom, and the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights have called for Lai’s release. Beijing has rejected such criticism as interference in China’s internal affairs.
The implications extend beyond one individual case.
Hong Kong has long positioned itself as an international city distinguished by its rule of law, open information environment, and integration with global markets. In the 2021 World Press Freedom Index compiled by Reporters Without Borders, Hong Kong ranked 80th out of 180 jurisdictions. In 2022, its ranking fell to 148th, the sharpest decline recorded in the index’s history.
Chinese authorities argue that the NSL has restored order and created a stable environment for economic development. Stability is indeed a prerequisite for prosperity. Yet for international investors and businesses, predictability and access to reliable information are equally essential. When political commentary becomes legally perilous and media outlets close under legal pressure, perceptions of transparency inevitably shift.
The question is no longer whether Hong Kong will return to the press environment that existed prior to 2020. That era has passed. The more pressing issue is how the city intends to define its international identity under the current legal framework.
If national security is interpreted in increasingly expansive terms, and political expression is correspondingly narrowed, Hong Kong may continue to function as a financial center. But its distinctiveness – long rooted in a comparatively open public sphere – will be fundamentally altered.
The case of Jimmy Lai is therefore not only about one publisher or one newspaper. It is a marker of how the balance between security and liberty has been recalibrated in Hong Kong. The long-term consequences of that recalibration will shape how the city is perceived, and valued, in the years ahead.
KURATA Toru is a professor at Rikkyo University College of Law and Politics.
Hong Kong press freedom