Tomas Roberto: Why Jimmy Lai’s sentence demands more than Government handwringing
What's the endgame here?
Tomas Roberto is UK Head of Public Affairs and Advocacy at The Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation
Jimmy Lai’s 20-year prison sentence is not just a bogus legal judgment; it is a geopolitical message. Lai, the 78-year-old founder of the now-shuttered Apple Daily and a British citizen, has been punished to demonstrate that Beijing can jail a Briton, dismantle Hong Kong’s freedoms, and suffer no meaningful consequences. That message did not emerge in a vacuum. It was reinforced, if not invited, by our own government’s weakness, most notably the Prime Minister’s supine visit to Beijing, which signalled accommodation when confrontation was required.
Lai’s “crime” was insisting that Hong Kong’s people deserved the rights promised to them under the Sino-British Joint Declaration – rights now systematically dismantled. His sentence is not merely intended to silence him; it is designed to terrorise others into submission.
The government has condemned the verdict, as it should. But condemnation has become a substitute for action. Statements of “deep concern” and diplomatic protests ring hollow when they carry no consequences. If British citizenship is to mean anything, it must extend beyond rhetorical sympathy or raising cases “respectfully” in private. The Foreign Secretary has said she will now “rapidly engage further” on Lai’s case. The obvious question is: why was the government not already doing so?
Beijing did not hand down this sentence despite British diplomacy; it did so because of it.
The Prime Minister’s visit to Beijing, framed as “re-engagement” and “stability,” was read exactly as intended. Britain wants smooth relations more than accountability. Human rights were raised politely, behind closed doors, while trade, investment, and “dialogue” dominated the optics. Jimmy Lai’s name, if mentioned at all, was clearly not treated as a red line.
Authoritarian regimes are adept at interpreting weakness. Beijing saw a Britain eager to normalise relations, anxious to appear pragmatic, and unwilling to risk economic discomfort. The result was predictable. With diplomatic costs lowered, the Chinese state proceeded with maximum punishment. Lai’s sentence is, in part, the bill for Britain’s deference.
If Britain wishes to reverse course and retain any credibility, it must now act with force. Indeed, engagement must become conditional, not automatic.
First, the U.K. should impose immediate and sweeping Magnitsky sanctions on all officials involved in Lai’s prosecution, including judges, prosecutors, and senior Hong Kong and mainland officials. London’s financial system remains one of Britain’s most powerful tools; those who dismantle freedom should be barred from enjoying its protections.
Second, economic consequences must follow. Britain …
What's the endgame here?
Tomas Roberto is UK Head of Public Affairs and Advocacy at The Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation
Jimmy Lai’s 20-year prison sentence is not just a bogus legal judgment; it is a geopolitical message. Lai, the 78-year-old founder of the now-shuttered Apple Daily and a British citizen, has been punished to demonstrate that Beijing can jail a Briton, dismantle Hong Kong’s freedoms, and suffer no meaningful consequences. That message did not emerge in a vacuum. It was reinforced, if not invited, by our own government’s weakness, most notably the Prime Minister’s supine visit to Beijing, which signalled accommodation when confrontation was required.
Lai’s “crime” was insisting that Hong Kong’s people deserved the rights promised to them under the Sino-British Joint Declaration – rights now systematically dismantled. His sentence is not merely intended to silence him; it is designed to terrorise others into submission.
The government has condemned the verdict, as it should. But condemnation has become a substitute for action. Statements of “deep concern” and diplomatic protests ring hollow when they carry no consequences. If British citizenship is to mean anything, it must extend beyond rhetorical sympathy or raising cases “respectfully” in private. The Foreign Secretary has said she will now “rapidly engage further” on Lai’s case. The obvious question is: why was the government not already doing so?
Beijing did not hand down this sentence despite British diplomacy; it did so because of it.
The Prime Minister’s visit to Beijing, framed as “re-engagement” and “stability,” was read exactly as intended. Britain wants smooth relations more than accountability. Human rights were raised politely, behind closed doors, while trade, investment, and “dialogue” dominated the optics. Jimmy Lai’s name, if mentioned at all, was clearly not treated as a red line.
Authoritarian regimes are adept at interpreting weakness. Beijing saw a Britain eager to normalise relations, anxious to appear pragmatic, and unwilling to risk economic discomfort. The result was predictable. With diplomatic costs lowered, the Chinese state proceeded with maximum punishment. Lai’s sentence is, in part, the bill for Britain’s deference.
If Britain wishes to reverse course and retain any credibility, it must now act with force. Indeed, engagement must become conditional, not automatic.
First, the U.K. should impose immediate and sweeping Magnitsky sanctions on all officials involved in Lai’s prosecution, including judges, prosecutors, and senior Hong Kong and mainland officials. London’s financial system remains one of Britain’s most powerful tools; those who dismantle freedom should be barred from enjoying its protections.
Second, economic consequences must follow. Britain …
Tomas Roberto: Why Jimmy Lai’s sentence demands more than Government handwringing
What's the endgame here?
Tomas Roberto is UK Head of Public Affairs and Advocacy at The Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation
Jimmy Lai’s 20-year prison sentence is not just a bogus legal judgment; it is a geopolitical message. Lai, the 78-year-old founder of the now-shuttered Apple Daily and a British citizen, has been punished to demonstrate that Beijing can jail a Briton, dismantle Hong Kong’s freedoms, and suffer no meaningful consequences. That message did not emerge in a vacuum. It was reinforced, if not invited, by our own government’s weakness, most notably the Prime Minister’s supine visit to Beijing, which signalled accommodation when confrontation was required.
Lai’s “crime” was insisting that Hong Kong’s people deserved the rights promised to them under the Sino-British Joint Declaration – rights now systematically dismantled. His sentence is not merely intended to silence him; it is designed to terrorise others into submission.
The government has condemned the verdict, as it should. But condemnation has become a substitute for action. Statements of “deep concern” and diplomatic protests ring hollow when they carry no consequences. If British citizenship is to mean anything, it must extend beyond rhetorical sympathy or raising cases “respectfully” in private. The Foreign Secretary has said she will now “rapidly engage further” on Lai’s case. The obvious question is: why was the government not already doing so?
Beijing did not hand down this sentence despite British diplomacy; it did so because of it.
The Prime Minister’s visit to Beijing, framed as “re-engagement” and “stability,” was read exactly as intended. Britain wants smooth relations more than accountability. Human rights were raised politely, behind closed doors, while trade, investment, and “dialogue” dominated the optics. Jimmy Lai’s name, if mentioned at all, was clearly not treated as a red line.
Authoritarian regimes are adept at interpreting weakness. Beijing saw a Britain eager to normalise relations, anxious to appear pragmatic, and unwilling to risk economic discomfort. The result was predictable. With diplomatic costs lowered, the Chinese state proceeded with maximum punishment. Lai’s sentence is, in part, the bill for Britain’s deference.
If Britain wishes to reverse course and retain any credibility, it must now act with force. Indeed, engagement must become conditional, not automatic.
First, the U.K. should impose immediate and sweeping Magnitsky sanctions on all officials involved in Lai’s prosecution, including judges, prosecutors, and senior Hong Kong and mainland officials. London’s financial system remains one of Britain’s most powerful tools; those who dismantle freedom should be barred from enjoying its protections.
Second, economic consequences must follow. Britain …
0 Comments
0 Shares
56 Views
0 Reviews
