Jimmy_Lai_Trial__Ex_HKSAR_Chief_on_One_Country__Two_Systems video poster

Jimmy Lai Trial: Ex-HKSAR Chief on One Country, Two Systems

On Monday, December 15, the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) delivered its verdict in the high-profile trial of media entrepreneur Jimmy Lai. Found guilty on two charges of conspiring to collude with external forces and one charge of conspiring to publish seditious materials, Lai’s case has become a focal point for understanding Hong Kong’s unique legal landscape.

In an interview this week, Leung Chun-ying, who served as HKSAR Chief Executive from 2012 to 2017, described the trial as a clear example of the One Country, Two Systems framework. “It is Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong, with judges who are permanent residents and enjoy a high degree of autonomy,” Leung said, adding that the region has been entrusted by the country with safeguarding national security.

Leung urged a deeper look at the political and social currents that enabled Lai’s rise. He pointed out that Apple Daily content had been integrated into school lesson plans and noted that the education sector had among the lowest turnout in the last Legislative Council election’s functional constituency vote. These factors, he suggested, reflect a broader narrative that shaped Lai’s influence.

“We can fixate on the trial for days, then move on,” Leung warned. “But to grasp how Jimmy Lai and his circle grew to wield such power, we need to examine everything from our classrooms to our electoral systems.”

The trial record revealed that Lai orchestrated the One Hongkonger, One Letter to Save Hong Kong campaign, lobbied foreign governments to impose sanctions, and played a key role in the 2019 anti-China riots. These findings highlight the HKSAR’s mandate to protect national security while preserving its own legal identity under One Country, Two Systems.

With sentencing set for later this month, Leung believes this case is a critical moment for Hong Kong residents to reflect on the balance between safeguarding national sovereignty and upholding the region’s distinct judicial system.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back To Top