外交部駐港公署發言人致信《華爾街日報》駁斥涉黎智英案社論

外交部駐港公署發言人今日（10日）致信《華爾街日報》，駁斥該報涉黎智英案社論罔顧事實，充斥偏見，嚴重誤導公眾。以下為全文：

致《華爾街日報》編輯部：

2月9日，貴報在黎智英被判處20年監禁後立即拋出的社論《黎智英被判處死刑》，明顯是一份早有準備的預製菜。社論內容罔顧事實，充斥偏見，嚴重誤導公眾。

我要告訴貴報，在大洋彼岸的無端臆測，反映不出香港的真情實景，以標題黨和虛假信息誤導公眾的時代已經結束。

——貴報認為20年監禁就等於死刑，那我告訴你，黎智英是罪有應得，被判20年是大快人心。香港早在1993年就正式廢除死刑，貴報更應專注研究美國法院判下的百年、千年甚至萬年刑期與死刑的關係。

——貴報認為黎憑藉「媒體人」的身份犯罪可有權豁免，那我告訴你，這種觀點大錯特錯！法律面前，任何身份都不是擋箭牌，任何罪犯都難逃法律制裁。

——貴報認為這次判決是「極大的不公」，那我告訴你，該案庭審在市民、媒體、外國領事官員的密切見證下全程公開透明，程序無可指責，量刑於法有據，罰當其罪，完全是正義的伸張，何來不公！

——貴報認為此次判決確認了「香港如今牢牢置於北京治下」，那我告訴你，這恰恰證明你們對「一國兩制」制度存在嚴重誤解——須知香港是中國的一部分，「一國」始終是「兩制」前提和基礎，任何試圖脫離「一國」的行為都是衝撞國家安全底線的犯罪行為，必須承擔相應罪責。

——貴報質疑香港現狀，慨嘆「時代的終結」，那我告訴你，香港終結的是被反中亂港分子搞得暴力橫行、烏煙瘴氣的舊時代，開啟的是由治及興、積極打造經濟發展「千里馬」的新時代。2025年，香港經濟發展取得一系列閃亮數字，無需我再重複。

——至於你們認為因囚禁某個人而招來媒體非議是得不償失，那我告訴你，堂堂正正的中國人從來不惹事兒，也絕不怕事兒，某些媒體的雜音撼動不了中國人依法行事的決心，依法懲治黎智英，無可指摘。

最後，我要告訴你，根據香港美國商會的報告，86%的受訪在港美國企業認為香港作為國際商業中心具有競爭力，94%的企業對香港法治有信心，92%的在港美國企業無意將總部搬離香港。所以，兩年前貴報搬離香港不合時宜，遠隔山海者只能憑空杜撰、被自己的謊言蒙蔽，罔顧事實者只能閉門造車、寫不出真知灼見。我們真誠的建議，貴報編輯部派員到香港走一走，看一看，了解體驗真實的香港。

外交部駐港公署新聞發言人

2026年2月10日

To the Editorial Board ofThe Wall Street Journal:

On February 9, your newspaper wastedno time in publishing an editorial titled “Jimmy Lai Gets a Death Sentence” right after his sentencing to 20 years in prison. However, this obviously pre-fabricated piece is rich in bias, poor in facts, and severely misleading.

Let me make this clear: fabrication based on sheer speculation oceans away is never a reliable way to write about the events in Hong Kong. The Wall Street Journal owes it to the public to rise above the use of clickbait headlines and disinformation.

— Your editorial equates in the title the 20-year sentence with a death sentence, which will mislead readers into believing that the Hong Kong court has just handed down a death sentence. For your information, Hong Kong formally abolished the death penalty back in 1993. If you are truly concerned with the 20-year sentence, perhaps you should be more worried about the century-long, even thousand-year sentences passed by American courts.

— Your editorial suggests that Lai as a “publisher” deserve some special treatment, if not immunity. May I suggest that everyone is equal and no one is more equal before the court.

— Your editorial decries the sentencing “a profound injustice”. I beg to differ here: the trial was conducted with full transparency, closely witnessed by citizens, the media, and foreign consular officials. The proceedings were beyond reproach, the sentencing was grounded in law, and the punishment fits the crime—this is the very embodiment of justice.

— Your editorial alleges the sentencing “confirms that Hong Kong… is now firmly under the iron boot of Beijing”, which only exposes your grave misunderstanding of the “one country, two systems” principle implemented in Hong Kong. Please bare in mind that Hong Kong is part of China, and the “one country” has always been the foundation of “two systems”. Any attempt to undermine “one country” is a crime that violates national security and must be held accountable.

— Your editorial laments the “end of an era” for Hong Kong. Here I’m delighted to inform you that it is the old era of violence and chaos orchestrated by anti-China elements that has ended in Hong Kong. What has begun is a new era of stability and prosperity, where Hong Kong is actively fostering economic growth like a racing horse. In 2025, Hong Kong’s economy achieved a series of remarkable figures, which I do not need to repeat here.

— As for your insinuation that it may not be in China’s interest to get the bad press and opprobrium just for keeping some in prison, let me be clear that the Chinese people never provoke trouble but never fear it either. Neither bad press nor foul-mouthing can shake China’s resolve to act in accordance with the law.

Finally, let me share this: according to a recent report by the American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong, 86% of surveyed U.S. companies in Hong Kong view the city as a competitive international business hub, 94% express confidence in Hong Kong’s rule of law, and 92% have no plans to relocate their headquarters from Hong Kong. Thus, your newspaper’s decision to relocate your Asia headquarters from Hong Kong two years ago doesn't look popular. The physical distance you keep from Hong Kong has led to a profound disconnect, leaving your editorial board in a cocoon, isolated from the reality here. This isolation compels you to resort to fabricating alternative narratives. Under such circumstances, how can genuine insight be expected? Therefore, I suggest that your editors step out of your New York cocoon and visit Hong Kong. Seeing is believing, as always.

Spokesperson for the Office of the Commissioner

of the Chinese Foreign Ministry in the Hong Kong SAR

February 10, 2026