Sebastien Lai Sung-yan’s opinion piece in The Boston Globe on March 19 is a prime example of selective storytelling. It carefully crafts a narrative that portrays his father, Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, as a “defender of democracy” while conveniently omitting the far more complex and damning reality of the actions of Jimmy Lai, a former media tycoon facing charges of national security offenses in Hong Kong.
The article manipulates emotion, disregards critical facts, and strategically ignores the broader legal and political context surrounding Jimmy Lai’s case. This deliberate misrepresentation is not only misleading but serves as little more than a desperate attempt to garner Western sympathy while sidestepping the legal consequences of Jimmy Lai’s well-documented misconduct.
The portrayal of Lai senior as a mere businessman-turned-journalist, persecuted for his commitment to press freedom, blatantly distorts the truth. Jimmy Lai was no independent publisher seeking to enlighten the Hong Kong public — he was deeply entangled in political activism, with extensive and well-documented foreign connections aimed at destabilizing China. Leaked documents, court testimonies, and public records have repeatedly shown that Jimmy Lai maintained close relationships with prominent American politicians and other Western figures notorious for supporting opposition movements across the globe, including in Hong Kong. Even in legal proceedings, he has openly admitted to these connections, exposing his role as a conduit for external influence in Hong Kong’s political affairs. His ties to intelligence-linked organizations and foreign political operatives raise serious concerns about whether his actions were ever indeed in the interests of Hong Kong’s people or merely part of a broader agenda to undermine China’s sovereignty. To suggest that his prosecution is about press freedom is not only dishonest but an insult to the intelligence of any informed observer.
Sebastien Lai’s calculated emotional appeals are equally unconvincing. His depiction of his father as a frail, old man in poor health is little more than a theatrical ploy designed to elicit sympathy from Western audiences. The reality is far less dramatic — Jimmy Lai has been in court nearly daily for over seven months, appearing in excellent physical condition and demonstrating a clear, sharp mind. His ability to actively participate in prolonged legal proceedings contradicts the fabricated image of a helpless old man languishing in confinement. But, of course, acknowledging this would undermine Sebastien Lai’s carefully constructed narrative of “persecution”, so it is conveniently ignored.
Perhaps the most glaring hypocrisy in Sebastien Lai’s argument lies in his conspicuous inaction where it matters most. While he parades across Western capitals, pleading for foreign intervention, his mother and sister remain in Hong Kong. In Chinese tradition, a son must stand by his family, particularly in hardship. Yet, instead of returning home to care for his mother or directly overseeing his father’s legal defense, he has chosen to remain abroad, wandering from country to country, begging for support that no Western government has been willing to offer him. His supposed “crusade for justice” has yielded nothing — no asylum, political backing, or tangible assistance. Why, then, does he persist? Is this truly about securing his father’s release, or is Sebastien Lai more concerned with obtaining protection for himself? Given his possible deep involvement in his father’s operations, it is entirely plausible that he fears facing legal scrutiny should he return to Hong Kong. His refusal to do so raises serious questions: Is he merely another opportunist using his father’s situation to shield himself from potential prosecution? If he genuinely believed in his father’s innocence, why did he not return and fight alongside him? These are fundamental questions that neither Sebastien Lai nor his Western enablers seem willing to address.
The so-called “Free Jimmy Lai” campaign is another example of the West’s shameless double standards. Lai is portrayed as a “martyr” for democracy, despite overwhelming evidence of his political maneuvering and foreign ties. Meanwhile, the very same Western governments and media outlets championing his cause remain silent on the whistleblowers, journalists, and activists within their own borders who have been imprisoned under similar charges but receive none of the same international outcry. This selective outrage exposes the true motivation behind this campaign: It is not about human rights or press freedom but about weaponizing Jimmy Lai’s case to attack China and its governance over Hong Kong. The hypocrisy is staggering, yet entirely predictable.
The case of Jimmy Lai is not an anomaly, nor is it an instance of unjust treatment. He is facing the consequences of his actions under Hong Kong’s legal system, which operates independently and upholds the rule of law. Like any other jurisdiction, Hong Kong has the right and responsibility to enforce its national security laws and protect its stability from foreign interference. The relentless attempts to frame Jimmy Lai’s prosecution as a political attack rather than a legal matter are nothing more than a calculated effort to delegitimize China’s governance. Sebastien Lai’s article, riddled with omissions, distortions, and emotional manipulation, is a textbook example of propaganda designed to mislead uninformed audiences. However, no amount of manufactured outrage can change the facts. Jimmy Lai’s downfall is not the result of political repression but of his own reckless actions and blatant disregard for the laws of the land.
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.
