The Jimmy Lai Trial's Game-Changer: When Loyalty Turns to Testimony

After 146 days of proceedings, Jimmy Lai's national security trial reaches its climax on 18 August with closing arguments. What really caught everyone's attention is that four of Lai's most trusted lieutenants have flipped, becoming key prosecution witnesses in what many are calling the trial of the century. 

We're talking about some serious heavyweights here: Next Digital CEO Cheung Kim-hung, Apple Daily Associate Publisher Chan Pui-man, Chief Writer Yeung Ching-kei, and Group Chief Operating Officer Chow Tat-kuen. These weren't just employees – they were Lai's inner circle, receiving daily instructions and messages from the boss himself.

The Mystery of Cheung Kim-hung's return to Lai’s empire

A friend who's known Cheung Kim-hung for years has finally solved a puzzle that's had Hong Kong media watchers scratching their heads for ages. Why did this guy walk away from Lai's empire in 2005, only to come back five years later? The answer, it turns out, reveals quite a bit about how these media moguls operate.

Four Next Digital senior executives turned against Jimmy Lai as prosecution witnesses, with CEO Cheung Kim-hung's testimony proving crucial. A friend reveals why he left Lai in 2005 only to return five years later.

The prosecution needed to prove three key points against Lai: whether he manipulated his media outlets to incite anti-extradition bill protests, whether he funded the "Fight for Freedom Stand with Hong Kong" international campaign, and whether he continued these activities after the National Security Law took effect in June 2020. And boy, did these four witnesses deliver.

When Editorial Independence Becomes a Myth

Cheung Kim-hung and his fellow executives were refreshingly blunt about how things really worked at Apple Daily. "Editorial independence" apparently only existed when Jimmy Lai wasn't giving orders – which wasn't very often. Cheung testified that Lai held weekly "lunch box meetings" where he'd lay out his political stance and tell everyone to operate according to his direction. When asked directly whether Lai influenced editorial policy, Cheung's response was crystal clear: "Of course he did!"

The timeline is particularly damning. After Lai's July 2019 trip to Washington, where he met with Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, things escalated quickly. Suddenly, "talk of sanctions seemed to increase more and more," and Apple Daily's editorial line became increasingly radical, painting violent protesters as victims forced into action.

Following the Money Trail

Chow Tat-kuen, handling both the company's finances and Lai's personal accounts, had some explosive revelations about the money flow. He testified about co-signing an $80,000 cheque with Lai's assistant Mark Simon to "Fight for Freedom Stand with Hong Kong" member Chan Tsz-wah, paid from Lai's personal company account.

But that's not all. Chow also revealed giving $3 million to Mark Simon for unspecified "projects" after June 2019, presumably to support overseas propaganda efforts. The web of financial connections between Lai's personal wealth and political activities was becoming clearer by the day.

The Stubborn Defiance That Sealed the Deal

Even after the National Security Law came into effect, Lai apparently couldn't help himself. When Cheung visited him in detention in December 2020, Lai's message was defiant: "Don't be scared, keep going! Do it the same way as before!" He continued his live streaming program, engaging American politicians like former American Institute in Taiwan Chairman Raymond Burghardt, while his terrified staff begged him to stop.

Now, about that mystery of Cheung Kim-hung's return to Next Digital. Turns out "Bold Hung" (as he's nicknamed) wasn't just bold at work – he was equally aggressive with stock and property investments. After leaving Next Digital in 2005, he threw himself into the markets with typical gusto. Problem is, while he gambled big, he also lost big. By the time Lai came calling again, Cheung's finances were in rough shape, and Lai – now increasingly obsessed with politics – needed someone capable to "watch over the shop."

Cheung Kim-hung went to prison for his boss, but Lai coldly testified they were not even friends.

The tragic irony? While Cheung Kim-hung ended up in prison for helping his boss play "democracy fighter," Lai coldly testified in court that they weren't even friends – just boss and employee who only talked about work. Talk about loyalty being a one-way street.

Perhaps that's why Cheung finally saw the light and agreed to become a prosecution witness. Combined with his early guilty plea, he's likely looking at a significantly reduced sentence and won't have to wait too long for freedom. Meanwhile, his former boss faces the consequences of a political gamble that's looking increasingly like it didn't pay off.

What Say You?

** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **

Five years ago, when Britain rolled out the BNO visa scheme for Hong Kong residents, the rhetoric was all about "historical responsibility" and standing up to China's National Security Law. But here's what they didn't tell you: behind the moral grandstanding was a calculated operation that aimed at the money of the BNO holders.

Former UK Consul General Andrew Heyn spilled the beans on the BNO scheme's Cabinet meetings—but conveniently forgot to mention Britain's cash-grab calculations.

The Cabinet's Secret Calculus

Andrew Heyn, the former UK Consul General to Hong Kong, recently spilled some beans in an interview with pro-democracy outlet Green Bean. He revealed the behind-the-scenes drama of those crucial Cabinet meetings where the BNO scheme was hammered out. Picture this: Dominic Raab chairing video conferences from secure rooms, with then Home Secretary Priti Patel—who'd built her career being tough on immigration—suddenly giving "100% support" to opening the floodgates for Hong Kong people.

Heyn painted it as Britain fulfilling its moral duty to Hong Kong. Noble stuff, right? But what he conveniently left out was the government's internal spreadsheet showing exactly how much cash this "humanitarian" gesture would rake in. We're talking serious money here—the kind that makes Treasury officials giddy with excitement.

Heyn revealed how Priti Patel backed the scheme as the "ultimate response" to Beijing, while staying silent about the £3 billion profit projections.

Let's cut through the diplomatic niceties and look at the numbers. The Home Office's own calculations, buried in official documents, revealed that the scheme, with an estimated 300,000 BNO holders moving to the UK, would generate a staggering £3 billion over five years. That's more than HK$30 billion, for those keeping track. And the beautiful part? Minimal government expenditure but massive income streams.

Here's how the con works: BNO visa holders get to pay for everything themselves—visa fees, healthcare surcharges, international student fees for their kids—while being barred from claiming benefits. They're essentially premium customers who bring their own wealth, pay full taxes on UK earnings, but can't access the social safety net their taxes help fund. As one brutally honest Conservative MP put it at the time: Hong Kong immigrants won't cost our taxpayers a penny—they'll bring their own wealth here and create economic value.

It's genius, really. Britain gets skilled workers, property buyers, and taxpayers all rolled into one convenient package, while Hong Kong people get the privilege of funding their own displacement.

Filling the Brexit Labour Gap - How Convenient

The timing wasn't coincidental either. When Britain formally left the EU in early 2020, European workers packed their bags and left en masse—creating an estimated 400,000-person labour shortage within two years. What a stroke of luck that the BNO scheme could bring in over 300,000 Hong Kong people to fill exactly that gap. These weren't just any migrants either—they were educated, middle-class professionals who'd integrate seamlessly into British society.

The government knew Hong Kong people would bring their life savings to Britain, pumping money into property markets and consumer spending. If migration hit the optimistic projection of one million people, Britain would essentially hit the economic jackpot—massive wealth transfer with minimal social costs.

When "Humanitarian" Intervention Meets Hard Cash

The cynicism runs deeper when you consider Britain's track record on actual humanitarian crises. Heyn revealed that during Hong Kong's chaotic 2019 period, the government briefly considered a "mass evacuation"—just like they'd contemplated after Tiananmen Square in 1989. But then, as now, they quickly backed down once the costs were calculated. Why? Because evacuation costs money, while immigration schemes make money.

Recently declassified files show that after June 4th, 1989, Britain immediately abandoned evacuation plans once they saw the price tag. The pattern is clear: if there's no profit in it, Britain simply isn't interested in playing savior.

So when Heyn talks about fulfilling "historical responsibility," remember what he's really describing—a masterfully designed wealth extraction operation dressed up in humanitarian clothing. The BNO scheme isn't Britain's generous gift to Hong Kong people; it's Hong Kong people's generous gift to Britain's economy. The only question is whether anyone in Hong Kong was paying attention to the fine print.