Father doesn't appear in Washington: Sebastian Lai takes Liu Xiaobo's prison to Congressional hearings

At the Washington hearing, Sebastian Lai had a microphone, a cardboard and a member of Congress in front of him; but his father’s position could only be determined by him.

on 17 September,U.S. Congress and the Chinese Commission hold hearings on the Li-Chi-Ing caseSebastien once again talks about the founder of the Apple Daily as his son—not as an abstract symbol of a Hong Kong national security case, but as a father who has spent years in prison and his family can’t meet normally.

This scene of “speaking instead of father” has been ongoing for a long time.Sebastien has traveled across the United States, Britain, Geneva and other places over the past few years, repeatedly explaining the same thing in parliamentary, media and human rights campaigns: why Liu Xiaobo is being detained, and why his family is worried that time is shrinking.

In February this year, the Hong Kong court sentenced him to 20 years in prison after he was convicted of two conspiracies against foreign forces and a conspiracy to publish incitement.The Hong Kong Special District government said the case was handled in accordance with law, emphasizing that the charges were aimed at acts endangering national security rather than journalistic work; Li's family, international press freedom organizations and some foreign governments have continued to criticize the affairs for the impact on freedom of press and political expression.

This gave Sebastien a special role in Washington: the legal proceedings took place in Hong Kong, with accounts of the father’s physical condition, family separation, and international affairs increasingly being carried out by children abroad.

He had previously said in an interview what he was most concerned about very directly—Father's age has been high, long-term imprisonment has caused his family to worry about his healthThe September 17 hearing once again brought this private anxiety into the open political space: a family wants the father home, while U.S. lawmakers discussed Hong Kong’s national security system, press freedom, and what the U.S. government could do.

Both languages coexist in the same hearing room.

For the Hong Kong government, Li Ching is the accused convicted by the court.The Hong Kong special district government has repeatedly rejected the criticism of foreign politics and organizations on the case, saying that the judicial organs perform their duties independently and that the outside world should not interfere in the Hong Kong judicial process.

For Sebastien, the case was first calculated by time: how many years his father had lost freedom, how many opportunities his family had left to live with him. He continued to appear on international occasions, and himself formed a contradiction – in the past, Li Ching operated the media, was directly involved in public discussions, and now a lot of public expression about him comes from lawyers, families, government statements and support organizations.

This is why the hearing on September 17 was different from the general discussion of Hong Kong policy.The hearing was not focused on rearranging the entire article of the Hong Kong National Security Act, but on the family’s re-translation of a judicial outcome that had resulted in a sentence into everyday life: not eating together, not freely meeting, and not knowing how much time there will be next time.

There is also another set of clear legal facts in the Li-Ching case. The courts have sentenced and sentenced; the Hong Kong government believes that national security laws safeguard national security and social stability, and denies that the case is aimed at freedom of the press. On the other hand, the United States, the UK and press freedom and human rights organizations have long demanded Li-Ching’s release, and have raised concerns about its health, detention conditions and the impact of the case on the Hong Kong media environment. The conflict between these positions will not disappear because of a hearing.

But the advent of Sebastian changed the way conflict was seen.

In the verdict, Li Ching appeared as a defendant; in the Hong Kong government statement, he belonged to the national security affairs; in the history of the Apple Daily, he was the founder; and at the Washington hearing on September 17, he was first a father who did not sit on the scene.

Sebastien was able to bring this absence continuously to different cities.

He attended the event for his father, took his father’s photo, answered reporters’ questions about health and imprisonment, and asked government officials and lawmakers to intervene. Regardless of whether these lobbying will eventually change Hong Kong’s decision, it has become another line in the continuous development of the Li-Chi case outside the judicial process: a prisoner can’t freely cross the border and his family crosses the border for him.

What Washington heard on September 17 was not Liu Xiaobo himself.

It is this absence that constitutes the most concrete fact of this hearing.