Mediaboss Marketing

The Hong Kong trial of prominent pro-democracy activist and media mogulJimmy Lai has garnered widespread attention globally. Lai, a 76-year-old British citizen and high-profile critic of Beijing, faces national security charges, and his trial is expected to take months.

Lai is a prominent figure in Hong Kongs pro-democracy movement. His detention and subsequent trial exemplify the challenges to freedoms of expression and association in the region under ChinasNational Security Law. Lais case also sheds light on the broader implications of the law, as more than 250 activists, protesters, and lawmakers have been detained under its provisions.

TheUKs involvementin Lais case stems from his status as a British citizen. His prosecution has prompted responses from both the UK andUS governments, calling for his release and the repeal of Hong Kongs National Security Law. Last month, Foreign Secretary David Cameronhighlightedthe erosion of rights and freedoms in Hong Kong and expressed grave concern over the prosecution of Lai and others under the law. Similarly, Human Rights Watch and the US State Departmentcondemnedthe charges against Lai, emphasising the impact on press freedom and democratic institutions in Hong Kong. The Chinese embassy in the UK, however,criticisedthe UKs involvement in the case as interference in judicial proceedings.

To learn more, JURIST Managing Editor for Interviews James Joseph spoke with Mark Sabah, the UK and EU Director at the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation (CFHK) about the case. Sabahs perspective is particularly nuanced given his ties with another former political prisoner, Sergey Magnitsky. A Russian lawyer and auditor, Magnitsky uncovered a large-scale tax fraud scheme, but was subsequently arrested, tortured, and died in custody in 2009, leading to the international adoption of the Magnitsky Act sanctions targeting human rights abusers. At the time of his arrest, Magnitsky was working at Hermitage Capital Management, where Sabah also previously worked. After Magnitskys death, Sabah devoted years to lobbying for justice for his deceased colleague through international sanctions packages. In addition to his advocacy work related to global Magnitsky-related legislation, Sabah helped establish the Sergei Magnitsky Human Rights Awards.

For additional context on the case, see our related interview with the founder of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, Luke de Pulford.

JURIST:Could you give me a comment from the Committee for Freedom of Hong Kong on the case against Jimmy Lai and your perspective on it?

Mark Sabah: So first of all, this is a show trial. Its a sham, and its not a real legal trial. Its predetermined; everybody knows the outcome. The CCP is barely hiding the fact that it knows what the outcome is. Theyve already made statements saying that Jimmy Lai needs to be punished, and therefore, what kind of independent trial can we expect? Secondly, the National Security Law trials have a 100 percent conviction rate, which doesnt lend itself to showing that the courts are legitimate, legal and independent. So chances are Jimmy Lai is going to be sentenced under the National Security Law. Theyll find him guilty. In fact, I would go further, he has to be found guilty. The Hong Kong authorities need him to be guilty. They need to show other Hong Kongers that there is no point in standing up and fighting for freedom. They have to make the point that if Jimmy goes down, all of you have to keep quiet, and the truth is, its worked. People dont trust the authorities. Hundreds of thousands have left to the UK and other countries around the world. None of that shows that Hong Kong is a credible, stable, free city any longer. The fact that the Hong Kong authorities invest millions in PR campaigns: the Hello Hong Kong campaign, for example, free flights from Cathay Pacific, and advertising on the BBC website to Come to Hong Kong, all of those are not signs that the citys doing well. So I would say that the trial of Jimmy Lai is not about Jimmy Lai. Its about freedom and democracy. Its about the fact that the CCP is imposing itself on the city. Its nothing to do with justice. Its nothing to do with any crimes. Its purely about the CCP showing that its in control in certain cities. And I think the West happens to recognise that Hong Kong is now just another city like any other on mainland China, no different than Shanghai, Guangzhou, Chengdu, Harbin, its just another tiny city. And as soon as Western businesses, banks, investment firms, hedge funds, and so on, realise that they are playing with fire by standing in Hong Kong, the better it will be for those people, those businesses, and their investors. So the trial is obviously devastating to those of us who are campaigning for Jimmy Li, but its an absolute death knell for the other 1,500 political prisoners because if Jimmy Lai, the most famous and the richest of Hong Kong people, cant lawyer his way legally out of it, then what hope does some 18-year-old who was arrested on some charge for waving a flag or lighting a candle, who doesnt have the influence and the connections around the world to convey to them. Its actually a very, very sad period in Hong Kongs history. I think were seeing the slow death of Hong Kong come to its conclusion. We can speculate about what would have happened if the 50-year Sino-British Declaration had reached its conclusion but instead, weve seen in a short period of three years, the slow death of Hong Kong right in front of our eyes, a slow motion, disruption of a city, however you want to describe it, and its incredibly sad.

JURIST: Do you think that in any way this is to make an example of him, being a UK national, and of the UKs rule over the territory, and China exploiting this to be a show-trial as an example to the West?

Mark Sabah: So I would say yes, to the extent that the CCP, China loves telling everyone dont interfere in our internal affairs, but it absolutely loves interfering in everyone elses affairs. China loves telling anyone thats our business, butt out. It loves interfering and telling others what they can and cannot do. The fact that Jimmy Lai is a British citizen, they just dont care, because as far as theyre concerned, hes not a British citizen, hes a Chinese man.

I think the British government has also acted appallingly in this case, they have not from the very beginning, stood up and shouted and defended a British citizen, they are only now talking about trying to get consular access when they should have demanded consular access the minute he was arrested. The fact that its taken three prime ministers and four foreign secretaries before anyone would meet Jimmy Lis son. The fact that he took David Cameron until December, although hes the new foreign secretary, to say Jimmy Lai is a British citizen and he should be immediately released. We had members of the foreign office saying hes a dual citizenship citizen, which is Beijings talking point, although Beijing, of course, doesnt recognise dual citizenship. So you could argue that its punishing the British, but its certainly them spitting in the eye of the British and saying We just dont care what you think. We just dont care. And the truth is, that has done nothing about it, they just rolled over and said, Dont worry, were still gonna send ministers to talk about trade and investments. Its astonishing that any British Minister or MP should step foot in Hong Kong in an official capacity given that there is a British citizen in jail. The first thing that should have happened is that Prime Minister Johnson and then Truss, and then Sunak, should have immediately said, There are no more official visits to Hong Kong. There will be no bilateral meetings with Hong Kongers. Instead, we invited them to London, we invited them to attend the Kings Coronation, and were sending ministers to Hong Kong. Its just simply mind-boggling.

JURIST: What do you think about the UK reaction to China and other states who have shown?

Mark Sabah: I spent six years working at Hermitage Capital with Bill Browder and weve lobbied successfully for the Magnitsky Law, and it was a huge success, and its a game-changing piece of human rights legislation. The astonishing thing is that for six years I went to parliament around the world and said, Wake up. Putin is trying to take over our institutions and is destabilising our democracy. Hes spreading disinformation. He wants to take over countries in Eastern Europe. Please wake up. And we were told theres money, theres businesses, football clubs and restaurant chains, theyre buying big houses, theyre buying yachts and thats great for British trains; and we couldnt do more to bend backwards, that our politicians, many of whom are exactly the same politicians as five years ago, will simply stand up and say Im having deja vu again, and say We need China investment for climate change Whats climate change got to do with a British citizen being in prison?

JURIST: What are you asking for, in the UKs involvement in China, and also on Jimmy Lai?

Mark Sabah: James Cleverly, when he was Foreign Secretary, loved prefacing every comment he made on China with, There are those who want us to disengage and decouple from China. Well, I wont do that. Who ever said this? No one has ever said that. But what we are saying is that having a trade relationship with China does not mean doing whatever they want whenever they want and accepting it. In any other world, if a Chinese diplomat drives a man into his consulate property and participates in a beating on camera, that diplomat would be expelled within 24 hours. Instead, when Bog Chan got beaten in Manchester, absolutely nothing happened. Apparently, the political officer was called into the Foreign Office, not even the ambassador. And then eventually, he was withdrawn and reposted somewhere else in December of last year. But that was to save face with the Chinese. So no rebuke, no punishment, whereas it should have been an immediate expulsion. Thats the kind of behaviour that allows me to keep going, exactly what happened with the Russians. How many people needed to be poisoned and killed in the UK before somebody said, Russia, youre out? Thats it, were done. And instead, what do we do here? Why not invest in our nuclear power? Or our infrastructure? Why not have your cameras in our government buildings? Why not invest hundreds of millions into educational systems, specifically, dual-use technology, nuclear research, etc, etc? Why not have the most Confucius Institutes of any country in Europe? We just keep allowing it by choice because were afraid of China. They send out a threat: we capitulate. How about once in a while, we put out a threat and let them worry about it? Why does it always have to be the other way around?

JURIST: Given the above, is our current approach to China fit for purpose?

Our approach to China is economic weakness and economic greed, its political weakness; and its also Foreign Office arrogance. We dont have a foreign office thats fit for purpose for the 21st century, we dont have a foreign office that knows how to deal with the rise of authoritarian states. And its not just China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Hungary, all these countries are going down the authoritarian route. Theyre all working together. Theyre all meeting and sharing information and data and theyre all passing political prisoners from one to the other than all avoiding sanctions together, and were still playing cricket while theyre MMA fighting. Its just unbelievable that we have a foreign office that is no longer fit for 21st-century diplomacy. We need to be more muscular. We need to be a little bit more confident. We need to be a little bit willing to lose a bit of business but to gain credibility and strength on the world stage. We can do it by standing up to China on minor things like expelling a diplomat when he beats up a citizen who has the right to protest. We can do it when theres transnational repression. We can do it on minor things like that. But if were not willing to, why on earth would we expect the government to stand up for a British citizen? My final point on that would be, that the Jimmy Lai case should send a shiver of terror across the spines of hundreds, if not thousands, of British people around the world. Because what the Foreign Office is effectively saying is, If you get in trouble, we are not coming to help you if theres a trade deal in the pipeline, or if they have our gas or oil, or if they are producing something that we need, you are going to sit in jail and languish. We are not coming to help you. Were very good at handing out new passports to Brits abroad in Magaluf. But when it actually comes to standing up for British citizens abroad, the Jimmy Lai trial shows that the British government will not help British citizens in trouble and we are showing that Chinas calling the shots. It is determining our foreign policy. It is determining our trade policy, and we are simply following behind in their wake.

Its an offshoot of the trade department. The fact that its called the FCDO, instead of just being the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, by managing it with development, we effectively had to align our policies with international trade. And the FCDO is really good, posting pictures on their Twitter accounts and so on, and junior diplomats with a poster saying Britain is great look at our sphere in Nairobi at a trade fair. And here we are in Bogota, Colombia, speaking to local businesses. Thats not what we need our Foreign Office for. Thats the trade department. Why is our foreign office doing that instead of creating an office for hostage retrieval, like the Americans have? Why havent they created that? Why dont we have one of those? Alicia Kearns, our foreign affairs committee chairman is demanding that we have one. The whole committee has written a report saying we need one. The fact that there are so many British hostages held abroad, and we are doing nothing to get them out is astonishing while the Americans are creating a whole department to get people out. As authoritarians hold more and more American citizens, while the United Kingdom and dancing around and doing Welcome to Britain campaigns, and so on. And the other failure by the Foreign Office and simply this: there are no China experts. Theres no one who speaks Mandarin. They rotate people for six months or a year. So some 22 years and finishes fast track is put on the Hong Kong desk. They listen and learn, and they nod their heads no world experience whatsoever. And then six months later, one year later, they move to the Nigeria desk. So you have to start all over again every single time. So if youre me, and youre campaigning for Jimmy Lai, you know, I have to keep going back to a new class and say, This is who Jimmy Lai is. Oh, thats interesting. Oh, thats terrible. Let me see what I can do. And then in nine months time, Hi, can I speak to Sarah? Oh, Sarah has moved on to the Venezuela thing. But Jonathans just started, why dont you come in and talk to him. Its just ludicrous the way our Foreign Service works. Its got to the point now where you never speak to the same person twice. Its gotten to the point now where the foreign office just regurgitates line after line after line and doesnt actually do anything. So its terrible.

JURIST: So how should the FCDO keep tabs on conditions in China?

Mark Sabah: The fact is, what if tomorrow the Prime Minister is going to China, who does he call in to brief him about whats going on? He calls banks, investment firms, businessmen.

They immediately call the British Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong. Brief us on how life is in Hong Kong. Its fantastic. We have great business deals lined up. Why arent you talking to the people who actually know China? The first people you should be calling is us, Hong Kong Watch, IPAC. What should we be saying? What should we be demanding? Of course, you should talk to your chamber of commerce and your local consul generals, but their job is dependent on being positive about their relationship with a country or they wouldnt have the job. You cant have a consul general who is saying, Oh, God, its awful. Of course, hes not going to say that. So if you really want to hear whats going on, hear from the people who work there or who had to flee from there.

China has also been really good and doing something which other countries dont do. If you speak ill of China, they revoke your visa. So weve had a politician that we met recently, who literally said, I dont want to have a photograph taken for you, and I dont want any notes of this meeting because Id like to visit China. Its remarkable. China does it with academia. You cant criticise China in academia. Youve got fantastic people who are China experts, but they wont criticise China overtly. Theyll say, Well, its not great. But theres also lots of good, to keep being invited back for research and so on. And when you have politicians saying I dont want a picture with you, because they may stop me from visiting China, we know that theres a bigger problem and China has been really good at yielding its carrot and stick.

So everyone capitulates. Instead of Britain saying, You know what? Thats it. Done. No politicians. In fact, China has sanctioned five British politicians because of their criticism of China. That basis on its own should exclude British parliamentarians from accepting any trips to China until thats those sanctions have been lifted. They werent sanctioned for corruption. They werent sanctioned for human rights abuse. They werent sanctioned for theft or for criminal activity. There were sanctions for speaking out against something the country did. On that basis alone, there should be no delegation of elected officials to China or Hong Kong. There should be no official visits, and it should be the number one talking point. Remove the sanctions on our Parliamentarians. Thats it.

More here:
Trial of Jimmy Lai: 'It's About Freedom and Democracy,' Says Hong Kong Freedom Committee Director - JURIST