As I see it | Western media criticism of the Jimmy Lai case verdict needs a fact check

There is this old British chestnut that says justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done. Justice has been amply served in the 20-year sentence handed down to former media tycoon Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, but it has not been seen to be done in many quarters, especially in the West. There is the reality of justice and the appearance of it, and the two don’t always or even usually coincide. There are two main reasons behind the widespread Western criticism of Lai’s case. One is that Western standards and assumptions about governance and journalism are very different from China’s. I can respect them in the same way that I respect Islamic or Christian beliefs, though I am not a Christian or a Muslim. The other reason is the West’s inherent double standards, to which I do object. Let’s start with the latter, which I will call the West’s fact-free criticism of the case. I will cite several examples, the first from The New York Times, written by one of its most prominent commentators, titled “Dissidents are silenced, and the West moves on”. His message is obvious from the headline. Suffice to quote one reader’s response, which is representative of many similar comments. “[The columnist] has now put on a blindfold for the atrocities happening in the U.S. (nothing to see here) and pivoted across the Pacific to charge China for something that is not unlike what is happening in the U.S. Is this to distract from the absolute destruction of the Constitution, Civil Rights, Human Rights that happens daily in the U.S., led by a man [he] has championed?” It would be helpful if the columnist at least had his facts right. “Jimmy had won a showdown with the Hong Kong government over a proposed security law”, he wrote, probably referring to the 2003 protests that led the government to shelve the draft proposal. Lai hasn’t been widely framed as the mastermind behind the 2003 opposition movement – until now apparently. This takes us directly to fact-free criticism number one: “It was clear then that Beijing had no intention of keeping its word”, he wrote, referring to “one country, two systems”. That has been a common Western accusation. But if that were true, why did Beijing not intervene for 17 years as the Hong Kong government delayed introducing a national security law that was constitutionally required? Why did Western commentators and politicians keep claiming Hong Kong was the freest “democratic” city in all of China until Beijing passed a security law for Hong Kong itself in 2020? That takes us to fact-free criticism number two, this one from The Washington Post: “[Lai’s] fate mirrors that of the city he loves: an open-air prison of 7.5 million people where no dissent is brooked,” an editorial claimed. If the security law had turned Hong Kong into an “open-air prison”, why do tens of thousands of Hongkongers cross the border into mainland China every day to commute, to dine and play and to shop for everything, including dental and medical treatments? Perhaps they feel their hometown prison is not bad enough and prefer the even more horrible and tyrannical mainland up north? And now fact-free criticism number three, courtesy of The Telegraph: “The Hong Kong publisher’s only crime was committing honest journalism.” Like The Telegraph? I assume the writer can’t speak Chinese and has never read a word of Lai’s flagship Apple Daily or Next Magazine, both of which are now defunct. We can argue about what kind of journalism they practised, but accuracy and honesty are not what immediately comes to mind. For those interested, I offer a more detailed analysis in “From Opposition to Subversion: the Rise and Fall of Jimmy Lai’s Media Empire”, recently published by Routledge in Media Realities: A West-Eastern Divan. But even the worst journalism, you say, should not land you in jail. Now I wouldn’t say the West actually practises what it preaches. Still, it’s a respectable position. In a previous column, I explained China’s three red lines that you should never cross unless you are baying for a fight: Taiwan, Communist Party rule and national unity. Lai’s journalism crossed all of them, over many years. He lasted so long, but no more, because Beijing has respected “one country, two systems” all along and continues to do so. But his culpability could no longer be overlooked after the foreign subversion, anti-government riots and arson of 2019.

.css-1m2rp1p{color:#34b8b5;}As I see it | Western media criticism of the Jimmy Lai case verdict needs a fact check

.css-1c6uqr6{color:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;line-height:inherit;overflow-wrap:break-word;}While some critiques of the former media boss’ sentencing come down to different standards of governance and journalism, others are steeped in hypocrisy

As I see it | Western media criticism of the Jimmy Lai case verdict needs a fact check

While some critiques of the former media boss’ sentencing come down to different standards of governance and journalism, others are steeped in hypocrisy