Not a ‘president's son': official rejects calls to pardon Hong Kong's Jimmy Lai
A Beijing official overseeing national security in Hong Kong has dismissed calls from foreign groups to pardon former media boss Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, questioning the need to do so as the defendant is not 'a certain president's son'.
Advertisement
Sun Qingye, deputy director of Beijing's Office for Safeguarding National Security in Hong Kong, also warned on Friday against putting pressure on local judges.
Lai, founder of the now-defunct Apple Daily tabloid newspaper, completed his oral testimony on his 52nd day in the witness box on Thursday in his defence against two conspiracy charges of collusion with foreign forces and a third of conspiracy to print and distribute seditious publications.
The prosecution of the 77-year-old has drawn widespread condemnation from some Western countries over claims it is politically motivated, with US President Donald Trump previously saying during his election campaign he would '100 per cent' get Lai out of China.
But Sun on Friday questioned the need to pardon Lai as some had suggested.
Advertisement
'Why should we pardon him? What are the reasons to pardon him? He is not a certain president's son,' he said on the sidelines of the 'two sessions', the nation's biggest annual political gathering in Beijing.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
HKFP
4 hours ago
- HKFP
Hong Kong justice minister downplays departure of foreign judges, says numbers ‘not main point'
Hong Kong's justice chief has downplayed the departure of foreign judges in recent years, saying it is not about their numbers but whether the judges have 'a good international reputation.' Secretary for Justice Paul Lam told Cable News in an interview published on Monday that the city's foreign judges system was still effective. 'There are new [foreign] appointed judges who are willing to join. Would you say [the system] is useless?' Lam said in Cantonese. 'If they think they wouldn't make any contribution if they were to come here, [I] believe they would not come to Hong Kong to help,' he added. The top official's comments follow a recent exodus of foreign judges from the city's top court. The most recent departure was former Australian justice Robert French, who resigned in April and said the role of foreign judges in the court had become 'arguably cosmetic.' In June, a New Zealand judge, William Young, joined the city's Court of Final Appeal (CFA). There are currently six overseas judges in the top court, compared with 15 at its peak. Lam told Cable News that the number of foreign judges was 'not the main point.' 'It's about what type of people come, and whether they have a good international reputation,' he said. The justice minister also dismissed Hong Kong's fall in the global rule of law index. 'Regarding human rights and freedoms, I believe that their ranking of Hong Kong… does not reflect the actual situation. This might be an issue of external perception,' he said, adding that Western countries often did not have a 'comprehensive' judgement of Hong Kong. Top court exodus Since the CFA's establishment in 1997, it has sporadically extended invitations to judges from other common law jurisdictions to join its panel. This practice has been regarded as a testament to the international community's trust in the city's judicial system. Last year, however, the apex court lost five judges. Anthony Murray Gleeson from Australia did not renew his term when it ended in February 2024, citing old age; UK judges Jonathan Sumption and Lawrence Collins quit in June 2024 before their terms ended; while Canada's Beverley McLachlin and the UK's Nicholas Phillips did not extend their terms. Sumption wrote an opinion piece for the Financial Times just days after his resignation, saying Hong Kong was 'slowly becoming a totalitarian state.' Judges operate in an 'almost impossible political environment created by China,' he said. Before the recent string of departures, two British judges in 2022, Robert Reed and Patrick Hodge, quit the CFA, citing the erosion of political freedoms.
Asia Times
9 hours ago
- Asia Times
Lee's election in S Korea: The time for wishful thinking has come
South Korea has a new President. President Lee Jae-myung is a lifelong leftist with an affinity for the People's Republic of China and North Korea, and has no great love for the United States. He has referred to American troops in South Korea as 'occupiers' and said China should do what it wants to Taiwan. Lee apparently likes North Korea enough to put money down. He currently faces charges for involvement in sending $8 million to North Korea while he was governor of Gyeonggi Province. His deputy has already been convicted. However, during the recent election campaign Lee talked up the US-ROK alliance and three-way US-ROK-Japan security cooperation. Thus, many American observers claim Lee is a pragmatist and a centrist, and will govern as such. Maybe. But as likely it reflects a tendency towards wishful thinking on the part of America's foreign policy class when a certain type of radical leader comes along. The same was said about Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Turkey's Recep Erdogan, Solomon Islands' Manasseh Sogavare, Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega and Cuba's Fidel Castro. Even Xi Jinping was mentioned as a reformer who just needed to solidify his position before liberalizing the PRC. But maybe these sort of men mean what they say beyond the soothing language intended for Western elites when on the verge of taking power. As for Lee, forget what he said on the campaign trial, and look at his new prime minister, Kim Min-seok. Kim was a Seoul National University radical student leader in the 1980s and joined the illegal occupation of the Seoul American Cultural Center in 1985. He was jailed for three years due to his anti-state and pro-North Korea activities. The Americans once refused to give him a visa, and he is said to have claimed the Americans were behind Covid. One recalls candidate Barack Obama who promised to 'unify' a divided United States. Once elected, he appointed Chicago political operative Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff. And America got Chicago politics at the national level. Rule #1 of Chicago politics: crush your opponents. Rule #2: do whatever it takes to keep power—forever. Don't expect centrist, conciliatory policies from Lee. Rather, we'll soon see Lee's pogrom against his opponents – to include anyone with the nerve to have called for honest elections. Lee's Democratic Party of Korea (DP) has an overwhelming majority in the national assembly – likely obtained by questionable means. He can do whatever he wants, and packing the Supreme Court appears on the menu. Lee's calls for 'restoring democracy' and unifying the nation in his inaugural speech give chutzpah a bad name. He and the DP spent the entire two years of Yoon's administration making it impossible for Yoon to govern and enact his policies. This went well beyond sharp-elbowed politics found in a normal country. Instead, it was intended to cause chaos. Nearly 30 impeachments of Yoon and his officials? Zeroing out Yoon's budget requests and more? Not exactly the behavior of a loyal opposition. Rather, Lee's election is one more episode in a years-long effort by South Korean radicals to establish single-party rule in South Korea – and align with the PRC, North Korea and even Russia. The original impeachment resolution against former president Yoon accused him of 'antagonizing North Korea, China, and Russia' and 'adhering to a bizarre Japan-centered foreign policy.' Sometimes people tell you what they really think – if you'll listen. Is this the end of the US-ROK alliance? It won't collapse tomorrow, and still has resilience. But any relationship is on shaky ground when key figures on one side dislike the other side – and would rather hook up with their partner's main rivals. Everything will get more difficult for Washington in Northeast Asia, and easier for Beijing, which has been pressuring and insinuating itself into South Korea for years. Perhaps hoping to make the best of things, the White House said the US-ROK alliance is 'ironclad' – and declared the election 'free and fair.' It did express general concern over 'Chinese interference' in democracies. The State Department similarly offered congratulations to President Lee. Free and fair election? South Korean citizens facing intimidation and lawsuits uncovered substantial evidence of widespread electoral irregularities (as they did for elections in 2020, 2022, and 2024). Did anyone at the US Embassy, the State Department or the White House even examine the evidence? Or meet with the citizen's groups? Apparently not. The foreign press has been equally lazy. As have most analysts. Rather than investigating, just call it baseless conspiracy theories. This was a gut punch to pro-alliance South Koreans, already distressed that the Trump administration couldn't be bothered to make a favorable reference to consensual government and honest elections before the polling. So maybe the Trump administration is going to wish away the problem and pretend Lee isn't what he's been all his professional life, in hopes of keeping the alliance alive. But at some point a US administration is going to discover that Lee and South Korean leftists—just like Chavez, Erdogan, Ortega and others – mean what they say. And Washington may one day find that South Korea, once solidly with the US and democracies, is quite the opposite. And, furthermore, that a system has developed in the ROK so that even if the problematic 'leader' goes away, the country is stuck and cannot re-democratize. Washington still has cards to play if it wants to support consensual government in South Korea – and at the same time preserve the US-ROK alliance. Not least is that most South Koreans don't want to go where Lee and his 'jusapa' radicals want to take them. But having a good hand requires one to actually play it. Grant Newsham is a retired US Marine officer and former US diplomat. He was the first Marine liaison officer to the Japan Self-Defense Forces and is a fellow at the Center for Security Policy and the Yorktown Institute. He is the author of the book, When China Attacks: A Warning To America . This article was originally published by The Sunday Guardian. It is republished with permission.
Asia Times
10 hours ago
- Asia Times
India breaks with China, Russia on Israel-Iran war
India's Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MEA) clarified over the weekend that India 'did not participate in the discussions' on the Shanghai Cooperation Organization's (SCO) statement earlier that day condemning Israel for its latest strikes on Iran. The absence of any clause in the group's statement indicating that India disagreed with them initially suggested consensus (including with rival Pakistan), but after the MEA's clarification, it now suggests that India was kept out of the loop. This could have political ramifications if that's indeed what happened. The SCO was founded to peacefully resolve border issues between China and the former Soviet Republics after the USSR's dissolution and then united them all in their opposition to the shared threats of terrorism, separatism and extremism. The group has since taken on economic and other connectivity functions after expanding to include India and Pakistan in 2015, with these additional interests increasingly taking center stage since those two accuse each other of fomenting the aforesaid threats. Iran joined the SCO in 2023. Article 16 of the SCO Charter clearly states that 'The SCO bodies shall take decisions by agreement without vote and their decisions shall be considered adopted if no member State has raised objections during its consideration (consensus)… Any member State may state its opinion on particular aspects and/or concrete issues of the decisions taken which shall not be an obstacle to taking the decision as a whole. This opinion shall be placed on record.' Accordingly, given the absence of any clause in the SCO's statement indicating that India disagreed with what was written, it therefore compellingly appears that it was kept out of the loop. That arguably being the case, Western-friendly policy influencers and policymakers in India might now feel vindicated after claiming for a while already that the group no longer aligns with their country's interests as much as before. This could, in turn, lead to pressure upon India to more publicly distance itself from the SCO. It's premature to conclude that India will react in that way, especially since it has remained in the SCO thus far, despite the aforementioned interpretations among some, aimed at averting the scenario of China dominating that group, with the possibly attendant consequence of Russia becoming its junior partner. From India's perspective, that would pose a major national security threat if China then leveraged its influence over Russia to deprive India of military equipment in the event of another border crisis. To avoid any misunderstanding, there are no credible signs that any such Russian subordination to China is imminent, nor that Russia would comply with speculative demands from China to cut India off ahead of or during a future crisis, thereby giving Beijing the edge over Delhi. Nevertheless, such fears might now be lent renewed credence among some important people in India given what just happened with the SCO, which follows concerns that Russian policymakers' perception of India might be changing. Readers can learn more about that here and here, with the second analysis explaining why Russia lent credence to Trump's claim that he personally stopped the latest Indo-Pak conflict, which India has repeatedly refuted. More than likely, Indian diplomats might soon discreetly request a clarification from Russia about why the group that it co-founded with China arguably kept their country out of the loop when issuing its latest statement. This article was first published on Andrew Korybko's Substack and is republished with kind permission. Become an Andrew Korybko Newsletter subscriber here.
