US condemned over Jimmy Lai fraud case comments
Beijing and Hong Kong have criticised comments made by the United States on the recent sentencing of media tycoon Jimmy Lai's fraud case, with the foreign affairs office calling on Washington to stop trampling on the territory's rule of law in the name of human rights. Lai, the founder of the now-defunct Apple Daily newspaper, was on Saturday jailed for five years and nine months, and fined HK$2 million for concealing the fact that he was operating a consultancy from the headquarters of Next Digital, in breach of lease conditions. The Office of the Commissioner of the Foreign Ministry in Hong Kong on Sunday strongly disapproved and firmly rejected what it called "irresponsible comments" from the US. In a statement, a spokesperson for the office stressed that while the rights and freedoms of Hong Kong residents are fully protected, they must not be "an excuse for criminal acts, an 'immunity passport' for law-breakers, or a privilege for anti-China forces in Hong Kong". "In Jimmy Lai’s fraud case, evidence is clear, the procedure is law-based, and the judgment is open and transparent. The trial by the SAR court is totally legitimate and lawful and it brooks no interference or reproach," the spokesperson said. The office’s statement was made in response to what US State Department spokesman Ned Price wrote on Twitter. In the tweet, Price said: "The United States condemns the grossly unjust outcome of Jimmy Lai’s latest trial sentencing. By any objective measure, this result is neither fair nor just." He also urged Chinese authorities to respect freedom of expression in Hong Kong, including that for the press. The SAR government also responded, saying it strongly condemned and opposed "the false and misleading statement" made by Price. "Interfering in the fair trial, the absurd statement has totally disregarded the facts. This is a political interference in, and malicious slander on, Hong Kong's judicial system," a statement read. The government spokesman noted that Lai's fraud case had nothing to do with freedom of the press and speech. "The nature of the case purely concerns fraud and should not be viewed as being tied with any political considerations, as it would be unfair to the prosecution and defence as well as to the whole community," he added.