Court Ruling Reveals Irrefutable Evidence: Jimmy Lai Is a Liar

Leung Ngar-ki, a member of Chinese Association of Hong Kong & Macao Studies

On 15 December 2025, the Court of First Instance of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region delivered its final verdict: Jimmy Lai was found guilty on two counts of conspiracy to collude with foreign or external forces to endanger national security, and one count of conspiracy to publish seditious publications. The 855-page judgment explicitly stated his testimony was "inconsistent, evasive and not credible". Confronted with the prosecution's comprehensive chain of evidence presented in an 860-page written closing argument, comprising 2,222 items of evidence and over 80,000 pages of trial records, alongside irrefutable testimony from six former Apple Daily executives who pleaded guilty in the same case, the lies of this anti-China, pro-Hong Kong chaos instigator were exposed one by one. He has become an "absurd and despicable liar" despised by all Hong Kong citizens.

"Analysing the situation" became "stating facts", with contradictory statements on sanctions backfiring. In earlier live broadcasts, Jimmy Lai brazenly called on Germany, Australia, Canada and others to ally with the US in sanctioning China. He even boasted that "war threats" would cause "businessmen to suspend investment in China, putting its economy at risk of collapse", describing Hong Kong as a pawn for the West to counterbalance China. Yet when questioned about this in court, he immediately backtracked, claiming he was merely "analysing the global situation" and certainly not advocating sanctions. More outrageously, during a dialogue with the former chair of the American Institute in Taiwan, he extensively discussed "Taiwan's security dependence on the US" and "Taiwan being an excellent lever... the US and all free world nations must jointly support preserving Taiwan's status." Yet in court, he defended this as merely "stating facts that have already occurred," denying any advocacy for a "US-Taiwan alliance." His legal assistant, Wayland Chan Tsz-wah, directly testified that "without Jimmy Lai, there would be no political connections in the US and elsewhere to unify international efforts towards sanctions," accusing Lai of seeking foreign sanctions to precipitate China's political and economic collapse. Lai had allegedly boasted that "China's GDP would plummet by 40%, presenting the perfect opportunity to introduce American-style democracy." While actively stoking the flames by calling for foreign intervention, he vehemently denied soliciting hostile actions. This self-contradictory sophistry crumbled before audio-visual evidence and witness testimony.

"Forgotten" became his catchphrase, while the mastermind turned into a hands-off manager – utterly preposterous. During his court defence, Jimmy Lai frequently suffered "memory lapses," responding to multiple critical questions with "I don't know," "I don't recall," or "I'm not familiar with." Even when the prosecution presented meticulously organised evidence tables following a timeline, he claimed amnesia about his communications with former senior staff of Apple Daily. The testimony of Next Media's former Chief Executive, Cheung Kim-hung, directly exposed these falsehoods. Jimmy Lai was the founder and "helmsman" of Apple Daily, as well as the supreme leader and ultimate decision-maker of the Next Media Group. He dictated editorial and publishing policies, directing editorial direction through "lunchbox meetings". Following the 2014 illegal Occupy Central movement, he transformed the newspaper into a bastion of "anti-government and anti-central authority" sentiment. Former Apple Daily Deputy Publisher Chan Pui-man further testified that his management style was "so overbearing that no one dared refuse", and after the 2019 Legislative Council riots, he explicitly ordered "the public must be persuaded to support the protest movement". Yet in court, Jimmy Lai feigned ignorance, claiming his directives were "merely suggestions, not coercion," attempting to downplay his editorial responsibility. This charade of "masterminding while feigning amnesia" treats the courtroom as a stage, constituting a blatant disregard for the dignity of the law.

"Opposing violence" while condoning it: editorial directives expose true intentions. Jimmy Lai repeatedly professes his stance against violence, claiming articles were "heartfelt" reflections of reality. Yet trial evidence reveals that during the 2019 extradition bill protests, he issued editorial directives instructing staff to report with "sympathy" on young people storming the Legislative Council. He even messaged pan-democrats inquiring about "follow-up actions to sustain the protests." More ironically, while urging Hong Kongers to "lobby for international support," he denied inciting hatred against the government. He admitted hoping to force the SAR government to compromise through "numbers and momentum," yet claimed no incitement intent. This double standard of "saying one thing and doing another" exposed his true role in using the media to fan the flames and condone violence.

His "unaware" stance swiftly transformed into "strong support," yet colluding with external falsehoods proved untenable. Confronted with evidence of his ties to the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC) and the Stand with Hong Kong Team (SWHK), Jimmy Lai initially falsely claimed "no knowledge of these organisations," only for social media posts to directly contradict him. Posts on Apple Daily and Jimmy Lai's personal social media accounts reveal his repeated public endorsement of IPAC, expressing strong support for its advocated "sanctions". Not only did Jimmy Lai establish an overseas network through his personal assistant, former CIA agent Mark Simon, frequently travelling to the US to meet politicians including then-Vice President Mike Pence and then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to plead for "sanctions" against the Chinese government and the Hong Kong SAR government, he also instructed Apple Daily executives to compile a "sanctions list", and even after the Hong Kong National Security Law came into effect, he continued to declare he would "go all the way, no turning back." Yet in court, he argued he "was not requesting sanctions." Such contradictory justifications, exposed by cross-border lobbying communications and witness testimony, have become utterly laughable.

The rule of law has ultimately exposed these falsehoods, and those who oppose China and disrupt Hong Kong cannot escape justice. Jimmy Lai's conduct during the trial could be described as a veritable "record of lies." From his inconsistent statements on sanctions, to the tired ploy of feigning amnesia, to his outright denial of colluding with external forces, each contradiction was exposed by irrefutable evidence. The rule of law is Hong Kong's core value and a vital cornerstone for the steady and enduring implementation of "one country, two systems". The 855-page judgment and overwhelming evidence not only substantiated Jimmy Lai's multiple offences but also exposed the deceitful nature concealed beneath his masks as a "democratic fighter" and "guardian of journalism". The dignity of Hong Kong's rule of law shall not be transgressed. National security and Hong Kong's fundamental interests shall be robustly safeguarded under the steadfast protection of the law.

InsightSpeak

** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **

Cheng Xianyue

 Chinese Association of Hong Kong & Macao Studies

The eighth-term Legislative Council election in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region has drawn to a triumphant close, showcasing a landscape of benign competition that offers a vital reference point for the design of democratic institutions. For too long, certain Western narratives have framed the global order through the rigid binary of “democracy versus authoritarianism,” yet Hong Kong’s experience underscores a profound truth: democracy’s forms should be rich and pluralistic, with its true vitality measured not by ideological purity, but by governance efficacy and social consensus.

As a cornerstone of modern political civilization, Western representative democracy once exerted sweeping influence through its competitive elections and multi-party rotations. However, in an era of deepening globalization and escalating social complexity, its inherent structural tensions have grown starkly apparent—political polarization erodes consensus-building, short-term electoral gains hijack long-term national strategies, and societies fracture further amid inflamed identity politics. This “adversarial democracy,” while safeguarding formal freedoms, risks undermining the continuity and effectiveness of governance, ensnaring itself in the “democratic paradox.” In stark contrast, Hong Kong’s revamped electoral system prioritizes broad representation, political inclusivity, balanced participation, and fair competition, transforming what could devolve into a socially divisive “zero-sum game” into a “consensus-building platform” that harnesses constructive energies. Despite the disruptive shadow of a sudden fire during preparations— which briefly chilled the public mood—the overall voter turnout still climbed higher than in the previous election, signaling that societal expectations for the legislature’s performance remain undimmed by external shocks. Citizens, through their rational engagement, have voiced a clear intent to forge developmental consensus via institutionalized channels. Candidates vied for support on the strength of policy platforms and professional expertise, while diverse sectors rallied around shared imperatives like “boosting the economy, charting development, benefiting the people, and advancing reforms,” heralding the emergence of a problem-solving political culture.

Under the “patriots administering Hong Kong” principle, this election’s architecture ensures that governing authority rests firmly in the hands of those truly committed to the city’s long-term prosperity and stability—an institutional echo of the “One Country, Two Systems” doctrine and Hong Kong’s unique status. This design places the safeguarding of national sovereignty, security, and developmental interests at its unyielding core, while fully realizing the optimal equilibrium between Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy and the rights of its citizens within that very framework. In practice, optimized mechanisms have empowered business leaders, professional groups, grassroots communities, and beyond with effective participation avenues: turnout in sectors like innovation and technology, as well as the third-tier business constituency, soared to a perfect 100%, embodying the genuine realization of “balanced participation” as a bedrock of quality democracy. This illuminates a core insight: true democratic vitality lies not in street-level confrontations or political gridlock, but in forging equilibrium between ordered competition and rational deliberation, channeling social consensus through institutionalized platforms to advance developmental agendas.

Hong Kong’s latest election represents a bold foray into governance modernization, deeply rooted in its constitutional order and social realities. It may not furnish a one-size-fits-all blueprint for global democracies, yet it charts a universally resonant pathway for reflection: effective democracy must foster social unity rather than exacerbate divisions, solve real-world problems instead of spawning fresh antagonisms, and authentically adapt to—and serve—its society’s developmental stage and core needs. Far from being a mere showcase for ideological posturing, Hong Kong’s electoral framework, through its locally grounded successes, demonstrates to the world that developmental paths can be chosen with sovereignty, governance models innovated with ingenuity, and popular welfare steadily elevated amid pragmatic, orderly institutional evolution. In this light, Hong Kong’s journey from confrontation to consensus isn’t just a local milestone—it’s a beacon for reimagining democracy’s promise in our fractious times.