It will come as no surprise to those who are familiar with Xi Jinping’s rule that Lai is enduring inhumane treatment.
It will come as no surprise to those who are familiar with Xi Jinping’s rule that Lai is enduring inhumane treatment.
J immy Lai, the Hong Kong newspaperman and British citizen, has spent more than 1,650 days in prison, mostly in solitary confinement. There is perhaps no greater living icon of freedom in Asia than Jimmy Lai. He was a central figure in peaceful protests against China’s crackdown on Hong Kong, protests joined by millions of the small island’s citizens. His newspaper, Apple Daily, was one of the loudest pro-democracy voices in the city until the authorities shuttered it in June 2021.
Lai is currently serving a six-year sentence for a minor lease violation. This has given local authorities plenty of time to drag out yet another persecution of this great man — this time, under the Beijing-backed National Security Law. The Chinese can’t be too worried about the outcome. According to the Hong Kong government’s own count, nearly nine out of ten people charged with offenses under the city’s national security and sedition laws have been convicted over the past few years. It’s hard to imagine they would let such a big fish get away.
It will come as no surprise to those who are familiar with Xi Jinping’s rule that Lai is enduring inhumane treatment. As I wrote about my friend and former colleague in the Wall Street Journal last week, I am extremely concerned about Lai’s condition. He is a 77-year-old diabetic. He lives in a tiny, windowless concrete cell without access to sunlight or fresh air, where he must endure the intense heat and humidity of his fourth Hong Kong summer behind bars. Temperatures this week are forecast to be in the 90s; humidity will hit 95 percent.
The Hong Kong government angrily accuses critics of “disregarding the facts and slandering and smearing” its administration. Those who ask questions about Lai’s solitary confinement in a windowless cell are guilty of “malicious and despicable intentions” and trying to “undermine the rule of law in Hong Kong.”
The questions we asked about Lai, says the government, “continue to distort the truth, blatantly discredit the judicial system and trials of the HKSAR [Hong Kong Special Administrative Region], and make false and misleading statements by fabricating information.”
This July 16 statement by the government, apparently made in response to my column in the Journal, claims that Lai’s solitary confinement “has all along been made at his own request.” The government cites a September 2024 letter from his local legal team as evidence. Robertsons, the legal firm representing Lai, has not responded to repeated requests for the letter.
The letter from Robertsons came after Lai’s international legal team testified before the U.N. Human Rights Council that Lai is a victim of torture and that his “prolonged solitary confinement poses grave risks to his health.”
Robertsons represents Lai only because the Hong Kong government denied his first choice of lawyer, London-based human rights barrister Tim Owen. Lai’s Hong Kong lawyers are part of a legal system buckling under enormous pressure from the government. Jonathan Sumption, one of Britain’s most distinguished jurists, resigned from a position on the city’s top court while warning of a slide toward a “totalitarian state.” Paul Harris, the former head of the Bar Association, was hounded out of Hong Kong under the threat of being charged with sedition.
Lai’s treatment breaks Hong Kong’s own rules prohibiting solitary confinement for more than 28 days. The Mandela Principles, international standards developed by the United Nations, say that solitary confinement should be used as a last resort and then limited to 15 days.
Even if Lai did agree to solitary confinement during Covid, did he request 23 hours per day locked alone in a cell for years on end? Did he ask for no windows or sunlight in his cell? Did he petition not to be allowed regular communion or association with fellow Catholic prisoners?
It should be easy to get the answers to these questions: Ask Lai. If Hong Kong authorities are so sure about Lai’s wishes, give him the freedom to speak to independent international observers. Lai is a British citizen. Let him meet a senior British official and international prison and medical experts. Let’s hear from the 77-year-old how he is faring during the Hong Kong summer. Let independent medical experts examine the intense rashes that he’s said to suffer in the heat.
Hong Kong authorities claim that prison conditions are “secure, safe, humane, appropriate and healthy.” If they’re so confident of these claims, they should be able to easily prove them.