A warning from friends of Jimmy Lai

An op-ed by Mark Clifford in WSJ…

Publisher and freedom fighter Jimmy Lai has been behind bars in Hong Kong since the end of 2020—more than 1,650 days. Hong Kong insists all is well with Mr. Lai and rebuts any claims to the contrary. Meantime, the government lashes out at critics who question Mr. Lai’s continuing national-security law trial—which could see him jailed for life—as well as his conditions in prison. Late last month the Hong Kong government assailed “foreign politicians, anti-China organisations, and various media” making “irresponsible and absurd remarks, distorting the truth” about Mr. Lai’s case, “with the intention of perverting the course of justice.”

Why is Hong Kong so aggressive in responding to questions about Mr. Lai? The answer lies in the absurdity of holding a 77-year-old newspaper publisher in appalling conditions while he is being tried on sham charges.

Next week’s weather forecast for Hong Kong calls for temperatures in the 90s and 95% humidity. It will feel as if it is more than 100 degrees. In Mr. Lai’s un-air-conditioned windowless cell, it will feel even hotter. That is neither safe nor humane.

…Mr. Lai is a British citizen. He hasn’t had Chinese papers since he left the country in 1961, when he was 12. Yet Hong Kong refuses to give the British government consular access to Mr. Lai, in violation of international diplomatic conventions. The refusal means that no British diplomat has been able to meet Mr. Lai during his more than 4½ years in prison.

Hong Kong officials seem scared even of Mr. Lai’s image. The last photo of him was taken two years ago by an Associated Press photographer, who was then tossed out of Hong Kong. Since then, authorities have used umbrellas and tarps and even boarded up a window to make sure that the world doesn’t get another look at Mr. Lai during his 50 minutes of outdoor exercise a day.

Mark Simon (a former deputy at Next Media) writes…

As I watched the daily news reports of Jimmy Lai’s NSL trial it became obvious, as it has now become to Beijing, that Mr. Lai opposed the violence [of 2019; one of his alleged crimes is sedition]. That truth won’t help him with Hong Kong authorities, as a conviction is a must. But inside the CCP in Beijing, there is a growing unease with the brutal treatment of a 77-year-old in custody. A man who becomes a martyr if he perishes behind bars. As one CCP diplomat told a businessman who dared to bring up Jimmy; “He dies, Hong Kong pays for decades”.

The Hong Kong government knows this, and that is why we were treated on June 30^th at 23:19, the day before the July 1^st National Day, to a late-night press release, meant more for Beijing than the West. A release that ended with but was centered around 500 words claiming Hong Kong authorities are treating Jimmy Lai well. [See following link.}

…Jimmy Lai, my boss, is willing to depart Hong Kong. He is 77. The CCP has taken his business, taken his freedom, and damaged his health. He’s not going to bend, but he is willing to leave. His departure, just as with the departure of other political prisoners frees not only those non-violent activists held in prison, but it also frees Hong Kong from the cost of the violence needed to hold political prisoners in the face of international condemnation and the penalties that come with that condemnation.

Hong Kong is ready to move on. Hong Kong is ready to free up its economy. But first, Hong Kong needs to free its political prisoners.

(The end-June Hong Kong government statement saying – last few paras – it is ‘committed to ensuring that the custodial environment is secure, safe, humane, appropriate and healthy’.) 

As both articles say, Lai’s death in prison would be a serious blow to Hong Kong’s image. Simon in particular suggests that Hong Kong’s authorities are determined to keep the Apple Daily founder in prison, while Beijing officials perhaps differ. This implies that Hong Kong’s leaders would flout Beijing’s wishes, which sounds hard to believe. It could be that there is internal debate somewhere in the power structure about the prospect of having a martyr on their hands. The local, as well as overseas, reaction might worry them: think of the potential for quite large-scale ‘soft resistance’ – eg, everyone wearing black – when Lai’s coffin is being moved, or the funeral takes place.

And here comes another…

The [HK government] today (July 16) strongly condemned various organisations in the United States and Western countries for, once again, disregarding the facts and slandering and smearing the HKSAR Government for handling in accordance with the law the case of Lai Chee-ying involving the Hong Kong National Security Law and related custodial arrangements. Their remarks fully exposed the malicious and despicable intentions of anti-China organisations and media from the US and Western countries to undermine the rule of law in Hong Kong.

In HKFP, the latest from the HK47 appeals…

Lawyers for Owen Chow and Winnie Yu argued that the three trial judges had exercised “excessive judicial intervention” and had prevented the pair from having a fair trial.

…Steven Kwan – representing Chow, who was sentenced to seven years and nine months in jail – said the trial judges had repeatedly intervened in the examination of the defendant by his own counsel during his oral testimony.

“On the first day, Kevin Chan [Chow’s counsel during the trial] was only able to ask 112 questions. The bench asked 153 questions,” Kwan said, adding that the judges asked 45 per cent of all the questions posed to Chow during his entire testimony.

…Robert Pang – representing Yu, who was sentenced to six years and nine months in jail – made a similar argument and said the judges “repeatedly descended… into the arena and disallowed questions.”

“From the very beginning of the examination-in-chief, counsel had been stopped by the bench,” Pang said. “By question 15, the court had started stepping in.”