China slams Jimmy Lai editorials in letters to WSJ, Washington Post

The Commissioner's Office of the Chinese Foreign Ministry in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on Tuesday rebutted Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and Washington Post editorials on the conviction of Jimmy Lai in separate letters.

In its letter to the WSJ's editorial board, the office said the paper's December 15 editorial had reached new heights of absurdity, denouncing it for slandering the judgment as a "show trial," glorifying Lai as "a newspaper owner passionate about freedom," and downplaying his collusion with external forces as merely "rallying support," while ignoring his calls for foreign sanctions against China and his declaration to "fight for America."

It noted that despite a trial spanning over 150 days and an 855-page verdict, the editorial still claimed there was "no serious evidence," calling the piece itself a "show editorial."

The letter said the WSJ, unable to find fault with the judicial process, instead pinned its hopes on so-called diplomatic discussions, openly calling on U.S. and UK leaders to pressure China and claiming that "freeing Jimmy Lai would be a favor to Beijing."

Calling for Lai's release through pressure, the letter said, was "an insult both to the rule of law and to diplomacy," adding that the "carefully orchestrated 'diplomatic script' is nothing but a fantasy that disregards international law and national sovereignty."

The rule of law is never up for sale, and the red line of national security is not up for challenge, it said.

In a separate letter to The Washington Post, the office said the paper's editorial read like a "failed preview" that left out the core plot of collusion with external forces, calling it "willful distortion."

The letter pointed to 156 days of open hearings, testimony from 14 prosecution witnesses, 2,220 pieces of evidence, over 80,000 pages of documents, and an 855-page verdict, saying that when someone invokes press freedom while urging foreign sanctions and declaring he is "fighting for America," such conduct no longer fits the profession of journalism.

"To be clear, acts that undermine national security are most likely criminal," it said.

Addressing the editorial's references to "health concerns" and "solitary confinement," the letter said these were "reckless fabrications," adding that Lai had received timely, comprehensive, and appropriate medical care, and that his good health was confirmed by his own defense lawyer in court.

It urged an end to what it called a "sham editorial," saying that when freedom is abused as a dagger, the law must be upheld as a shield, a principle it said holds true everywhere.