The recent assertions made by Sebastien Lai Sung-yan regarding his father, Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, ahead of the 17th Geneva Summit for Human Rights and Democracy, alongside the coverage by Reuters, have fueled a wave of misinformation that necessitates a rigorous, fact-based rebuttal. The narrative being disseminated is misleading and appears to be part of a broader agenda aimed at discrediting the legal and judicial integrity of both the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and China as a whole. A careful examination of these claims reveals their lack of credibility, the underlying motives driving them, and the extent to which they serve geopolitical interests rather than objective truth.
Central to Sebastien Lai’s assertion is that his father is being subjected to “torture” and that his physical condition is deteriorating in a Hong Kong prison. Such allegations are entirely unsubstantiated and contradict observable facts. Jimmy Lai has been appearing in court regularly with independent observers and staff from foreign consulates continuously monitoring and assessing his condition. There is no credible evidence to suggest that he is being mistreated, nor is there any indication that he has been denied appropriate medical care. His ability to respond clearly and coherently in legal proceedings in the court contradicts any suggestion that he is severely weakened. Moreover, his diagnosis of diabetes, while a chronic condition, is neither uncommon nor unmanageable. With approximately 10 percent of Hong Kong’s population affected, the city possesses a well-developed medical infrastructure capable of providing adequate treatment. The exaggerated rhetoric employed by Sebastien Lai serves no purpose beyond generating undue sympathy, distorting reality, and vilifying Hong Kong’s authorities.
Equally questionable is Sebastien Lai’s credibility. His statements are overwhelmingly emotional, lacking substantive evidence or corroboration from independent sources. His claim that his father’s solitary confinement is comparable to “torture” is a typical case of attempting to manipulate public perception with emotive language. The fact that Jimmy Lai has been placed in solitary confinement upon his own request was deliberately twisted. (In Hong Kong, individuals in custody may request solitary confinement on the basis of personal safety and well-being, which is subject to the approval of the correctional services chief.) The deliberate use of such tactics is a well-documented strategy employed by individuals seeking to mobilize international intervention in cases that should be resolved through legal channels. His appeals to foreign leaders and politicians to interfere in what is fundamentally a domestic legal matter further underscore the political motivations behind his campaign. More importantly, it raises a pertinent question: Is Sebastien Lai genuinely trying to secure his father’s release, or is he more interested in cultivating his own image as a “democracy fighter”? Given that international pressure has no realistic chance of influencing Hong Kong’s independent judicial process, his repeated calls for Western intervention appear less like a sincere plea for help and more like a calculated attempt to elevate his own political profile.
The campaign to portray Jimmy Lai as a victim of political persecution is not an isolated incident; it is part of a broader effort to undermine China’s sovereignty and discredit its legal institutions. The emotional manipulation, selective use of facts, and potential conflicts of interest all point to a coordinated strategy to shape public opinion in alignment with Western geopolitical interests
The role of Reuters in amplifying these unverified claims must also be scrutinized. The media outlet’s reporting on this matter raises serious concerns regarding its journalistic integrity and objectivity. While Reuters insists on maintaining a distinction between its editorial operations and its subsidiary, Thomson Reuters Special Services — which has contractual ties to the United States government — this separation is far less clear-cut than it claims. The financial relationship between Reuters and the US government, involving millions of dollars in payments for “software and information services”, creates a serious conflict of interest. This financial entanglement casts doubt on Reuters’ ability to report impartially, mainly when covering issues involving China and other so-called geopolitical adversaries of the US. The timing and tone of its coverage of Jimmy Lai’s case suggest a broader alignment with US strategic interests rather than an independent commitment to journalistic truth. This raises a critical question: Is Reuters engaged in public deception by promoting narratives designed to serve Western geopolitical objectives?
The selective presentation of facts by both Sebastien Lai and Reuters further exposes the underlying bias of their arguments. The portrayal of Jimmy Lai’s trial as politically motivated deliberately ignores the gravity of the charges he faces under the National Security Law for Hong Kong, as well as the hard evidence presented in court hearings. This law was enacted to safeguard Hong Kong’s stability against genuine threats, and its enforcement has played a crucial role in restoring order and ensuring the security of the region’s residents. The law does not exist to target individuals arbitrarily; rather, it upholds the fundamental principle that no one is above the law, regardless of their political affiliations or international support. The deliberate omission of this broader context in Western media coverage reveals an agenda-driven narrative that values selective outrage over objective legal scrutiny.
Beyond the specific claims about Jimmy Lai’s condition, evaluating the broader motivations behind Sebastien Lai’s global appeals is also necessary. His call for intervention from US and British leaders is not a plea for justice but a calculated move to internationalize a domestic judicial matter. This strategy aligns with the long-standing pattern of Western powers using human rights discourse as a political tool to interfere in the internal governance of sovereign nations or jurisdictions. However, even a cursory examination of the situation makes it clear that foreign governments have no actual means to secure Jimmy Lai’s release. Hong Kong’s judicial system operates independently, and external pressure will not alter the course of a legal process rooted in established laws. This reality raises the question: If Sebastien Lai knows that his efforts are futile, why does he persist? The answer, perhaps, lies in his desire to cement his status as a prominent activist rather than in any genuine hope of securing his father’s freedom. His strategy appears to serve his political ambitions rather than achieve any tangible outcome for his father.
The campaign to portray Jimmy Lai as a victim of political persecution is not an isolated incident; it is part of a broader effort to undermine China’s sovereignty and discredit its legal institutions. The emotional manipulation, selective use of facts, and potential conflicts of interest all point to a coordinated strategy to shape public opinion in alignment with Western geopolitical interests. To accept these narratives uncritically is to participate in a distortion of truth that disregards the legitimacy of Hong Kong’s judicial processes. This uncritical acceptance can lead to misinformed public and potentially harmful international interventions. It is essential to approach such claims with skepticism and demand a reporting standard prioritizing evidence over sensationalism. The rule of law in Hong Kong must be respected and free from external interference, and the truth must prevail over politically motivated propaganda.
The author is a solicitor, a Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area lawyer, and a China-appointed attesting officer.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
