Jimmy Lai, the founder of Next Digital, has been convicted on all three counts of violating Hong Kong's National Security Law. The court found that Lai exploited social unrest and public disorder to incite citizens to confront the government. During his own defense, Lai admitted he pushed young people into the streets simply to create optics—a "visual" showing that people of different ages opposed the government. Li Kwai-wah, Chief Superintendent of the National Security Department, called Lai out directly: to him, young people were just tools to accomplish his political tasks. Despicable doesn't begin to cover it.
The court identified Lai as the mastermind behind three conspiracy charges and concluded that his sole objective—both before and after the National Security Law took effect—was to bring down the Chinese Communist Party.
The Timeline: From Legal Reform to Sedition
The verdict lays out the background: In February 2019, the HKSAR government proposed amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance to address legal gaps in handling cross-jurisdictional cases. From that point on, Lai weaponized Apple Daily to push citizens into the streets to protest the draft amendments.
What started as demonstrations escalated into resistance. Lai seized on the social chaos and breakdown in public order, turning Apple Daily into a platform for seditious articles designed to provoke hatred and confrontation against the Central Government and the HKSAR government.
Speaking to reporters, Li Kwai-wah stressed what everyone should focus on: Jimmy Lai's role in the "Black Riots" events. For Lai, young people were nothing more than tools to help him achieve his political goals. That's what makes this so heinous.
Lai's Own Words: Students Were Just "Visuals"
During his defense, Lai personally admitted that on June 8, 2019, in a WhatsApp group created by Lee Cheuk-yan to mobilize participation in that year's "June 9 March," he forwarded a message suggested by Martin Lee. The message called for more young people to take to the streets and join the march—specifically to use the visuals of the march to highlight that people of different age groups were dissatisfied with the government. Lai also admitted in court that he had instructed staff to interview petitioning students to inspire other students to join the marches.
Trial evidence showed that the "Video Talk" and "Support Students Subscription Plan" promoted by Apple Daily during the protests—under Lai's direction—were deliberately targeted at young people to incite them to participate in anti-government movements.
Li Kwai-wah slammed Lai for treating "students and young people" as nothing more than a "visual" to achieve political ends. But strategically inciting young people to engage in anti-government activities led to many of them ending up in prison with their futures destroyed, causing immense heartbreak for their parents.
Lai was the driving force behind the entire chaos and cannot escape responsibility. His crimes are too numerous to list, and the evidence is ironclad.
The Double Standard Lai Won't Address
Leung Chun-ying, Vice Chairman of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), put it bluntly on social media: Jimmy Lai has harmed an entire generation of Hong Kong teenagers. "For this alone, what sentence could possibly be too severe?"
Leung said he has read almost all of Jimmy Lai's signed articles in Apple Daily and his interviews with foreign media, and has consistently rebutted them publicly. He pointed out that Lai seriously misjudged both the domestic and international situation—grossly overestimating his leverage—thinking that lip service support from the US and Western countries meant he could act with impunity.
Leung argued that during the trial, Lai first made strategic errors, then was riddled with mistakes and contradictions during cross-examination. "If he really is a 'political prisoner' as some Westerners claim, why not just keep pretending to be a hero? Why push the blame for Apple Daily's sedition onto his subordinates? Why argue that he 'did not interfere with editorial decisions'? Why say 'instructions regarding part of the editorial content were issued before the National Security Law took effect, and afterwards content had to avoid illegality while walking a fine line'? Why say 'columns only listed facts or analysis and speculation'?" Leung noted that only a political coward would defend himself in this manner.
Leung also noted that Lai claimed to be a British citizen, yet the UK, the US, and other Western countries would absolutely not allow their own citizens to collude with foreign forces. Leung emphasized that Lai was the flag-bearer, the brains, the treasurer, and the mouthpiece who charged forward blindly, harming an entire generation of Hong Kong teenagers. For this point alone, no sentence could possibly be too severe!
Leung also posted in English, stating that Jimmy Lai is neither a democrat nor a freedom fighter as depicted by certain Western media and politicians. For years, Lai attempted to convert the high degree of autonomy Hong Kong enjoys under the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law into de facto independence for Hong Kong, thereby undermining the nation's sovereignty over Hong Kong. He was even audacious enough to plot the overthrow of the Central Government. He might be an ignorant fool, but he is definitely not innocent.
Ariel
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
The Democratic Party—once Hong Kong's supposed opposition heavyweight—is dead. December 14th marked the end of operations, leaving founding elder Fred Li weeping on the street, admitting he "never imagined today’s situation." But let's look at the evidence: this wasn't an accident. Plagued by decades of bitter internal factional wars and a disastrous pivot to radicalism during the 2019 riots, the party didn't just fade away; it walked willingly into its own destruction.
Formed in 1994 via a merger of the United Democrats and Meeting Point, the party once dominated the Legislative Council. But the cracks appeared early. By 1998, the so-called "Young Turks"—figures like To Kwan-hang, Albert Chan, and Andrew Cheng—staged a coup during leadership elections. They voted down the "Meeting Point faction's" Anthony Cheung, forcing Lau Chin-shek into the Vice-Chairmanship instead.
The ideological rift widened in 1999. When the "Young Turks" tried to push a minimum wage policy into the party platform, the general meeting shot it down. From that moment, the gap between the aggressive youth wing and the party elders kept widening
The inevitable split happened in 2002. Hardliners To Kwan-hang and Albert Chan walked out to establish the League of Social Democrats. Founding Vice-Chairman Anthony Cheung had enough, quitting in 2004 to join the Executive Council the following year.
Internal Rot and Public Scandals
Between internal fractures and the rise of rivals like the Civic Party, the Democratic Party's grip began to slip. The Legislative Council elections in 2004 and 2008 saw a sharp, quantifiable reduction in their seats.
It wasn't just bad politics; it was bad behavior. The party was mired in scandal. Take the year 2000: James To was exposed for funneling government funds to rent property from "Wui Biu Company"—a firm he held himself—in a blatant suspected conflict of interest. That same year, Ho Wai-to was arrested in Dongguan for soliciting prostitutes.
Then came the bizarre "True Brothers Incident" in 2006. An anonymous leaker dumped emails from the "Reformist" faction, alleging infiltration and claims that members were being "bought off" by officials. Elders Martin Lee and Szeto Wah launched a panic-stricken investigation. Years later, founding member Howard Lam confessed he was the leak—claiming Szeto Wah had actually planted him as an "undercover agent" to spy on his own party members.
By the illegal "Occupy Central" movement in 2014, the political landscape had shifted toward radicalization. The Democratic Party joined the fray but failed to lead. Desperate to stay relevant, they fielded younger candidates in the 2016 Legislative Council election. While Lam Cheuk-ting, Ted Hui, and Roy Kwong helped boost their count to seven seats, this victory came at a cost: radicals like Lam and Hui took the stage, sidelining the moderate elders.
Crossing the Red Line: 2019
During the 2019 anti-extradition turmoil, the mask came off. Instead of dissociating from the chaos, the Democratic Party aligned itself with violent forces. They were frequently spotted at riot sites, obstructing police and shielding violent demonstrators. Chairman Wu Chi-wai provided the defining image of this folly at Tim Mei Avenue, screaming "I want to see the commander" at police lines—a "classic moment" of performative obstruction.
Riding a wave of extreme social hostility, they swept 91 seats in the District Council elections that year. But this was a pyrrhic victory. By embracing extremism to win votes, they passed the point of no return, sowing the very seeds of the total collapse we are witnessing today.
Inside the legislature, the tactics were just as destructive. They relentlessly filibustered to paralyze governance. Ted Hui turned the chamber into a circus, at one point throwing a stink bomb during the National Anthem Bill debate. By late 2020, Hui fled to Denmark under the false pretense of official business, jumped bail, and quit the party. Now a fugitive wanted under the National Security Law, he spends his time in Australia clamoring for sanctions against his home city.
When the 2020 Legislative Council election was postponed, most opposition members initially planned to stay on. However, following the disqualification of four members—including Alvin Yeung and Dennis Kwok—the Democratic Party staged a mass resignation. Their seat count hit "zero," a self-inflicted wound that removed them from the political board entirely.
Subversion and the Money Trail
In 2021, the opposition attempted an illegal "primary election" designed to seize a majority, indiscriminately veto the budget, and paralyze the government. The Democratic Party eagerly participated in this scheme. Consequently, key figures including Wu Chi-wai, Helena Wong, Lam Cheuk-ting, Andrew Wan, James To, and Roy Kwong were arrested for subversion of state power. The first four have since been prosecuted and handed prison sentences ranging from over 4 to nearly 7 years.
And then there's the money. Evidence from the collusion trial of Jimmy Lai exposes the financial lifeline. Transaction records reveal that between 2013 and 2020, Lai’s aide Mark Simon received HK$118.66 million from Lai. Given Simon’s salary was only about HK$1.2 million, the bulk of this cash was clearly not for him. The funds were funneled to various opposition groups in 72 separate transfers. Crucially, "Lais Hotel"—a company controlled by Lai and Simon—was caught remitting a staggering HK$5 million directly to the Democratic Party headquarters.
Looking back at the Democratic Party’s 30-year trajectory, the conclusion is inescapable. Defined by ceaseless infighting, an addiction to radicalism, and a refusal to cut ties with violence, they dug their own grave. They passed the point of no return long ago, marching blindly down a dead-end road to self-destruction.
