In the quiet of a city that has long balanced diverse voices and histories, recent weeks have brought a moment that feels heavier than its language. When a leader speaks of “evil deeds,” the tone resonates beyond ordinary judgment, shading how a society understands justice, dissent, and order. In Hong Kong this week, that phrase echoed from the highest office as the city’s chief executive publicly approved a court’s decision in one of its most consequential legal cases in years.
Jimmy Lai, a founder of the once-influential Apple Daily newspaper and a prominent critic of Beijing’s policies, has been sentenced to 20 years in prison following conviction on charges of conspiracy to collude with foreign forces and related offences under the national security law. The sentence is the harshest yet handed down under the law and has drawn attention internationally, framing this as a defining moment in Hong Kong’s evolving legal and civic landscape.
Chief Executive John Lee, in publicly applauding the ruling, described Lai’s actions as deeply harmful and portrayed the sentence as justified. In Lee’s own words, Lai’s conduct amounted to “evil deeds” and the heavy sentence brought a sense of relief for upholding legal order in the city. The government’s stance reflects its view that the national security law is essential to safeguarding stability and that the judiciary’s ruling demonstrated that principle in practice.
The legal case against Lai has been a long and closely watched one, unfolding over years since his arrest under the national security law imposed by Beijing. Supporters of the law argue it is necessary to deter threats to public order, especially those involving external influence or sedition. Authorities have consistently defended their actions as lawful and necessary, seeking to assure residents and investors alike that the rule of law is being upheld.
Yet outside Hong Kong’s official statements, reactions have been more varied. Foreign governments and human rights organisations have criticised the sentence as overly severe and politically motivated, with some describing it as tantamount to a life sentence given Lai’s age and health. Critics view the ruling as part of a broader trend of tightening limits on dissent and press freedom under the national security law.
Within Hong Kong, the discourse around the case reflects divergent perspectives. Some residents and civic groups express concern about the implications for freedom of expression, while others align with official emphasis on the need for national stability and legal certainty. The broader public conversation, like the city itself, is marked by a balance between order and the space for differing views.
For now, the sentence stands as one of the most significant applications of the national security law since its enactment. The government’s praise of the ruling underscores its commitment to a particular vision of law and order, even as divergent voices at home and abroad continue to reflect on what this moment means for Hong Kong’s future civic identity.
In gentle closing news: Hong Kong authorities maintain that the legal process in Jimmy Lai’s case adhered to the rule of law and that the sentence reflects the severity of the convicted offences, while international actors and the broader public debate the wider implications of the decision.
AI Image Disclaimer Visuals are created with AI tools and are not real photographs.
Sources (Media Names Only) Reuters Associated Press South China Morning Post Bloomberg News RTHK