Sentencing pleas in the Jimmy Lai case took a stark turn on day two. Two of Apple Daily's most senior executives—publisher Cheung Kim-hung and deputy publisher Chan Pui-man—laid bare the brutal reality of working under Lai's thumb.
Through their lawyers, Cheung and Chan described an environment where dissent was futile, orders were absolute, and resistance meant risking everything. Both painted a picture of powerless lieutenants dragged down an illegal path by a boss who wouldn't budge.
Defense counsel argued Cheung Kim-hung held the CEO title but lacked real authority. He could only execute the "mastermind's" orders—objection achieved nothing.
During trial testimony, both executives recounted losing their free will under Lai's command. On Tuesday, Chan went further. She revealed she'd considered quitting but couldn't afford to walk away because of her own medical need. She told the court she deeply regretted failing to hold fast to journalistic principles.
Lai's Top Gun
Cheung Kim-hung was Lai's number one. He'd jumped ship from Apple Daily back in 2005, only to return five years later and climb to publisher and CEO. But when the anti-extradition protests erupted, Cheung became what his lawyer called an "execution tool"—someone who could only carry out the boss's orders.
Yesterday's plea hearing revealed a telling example. Lai wanted to bring former US Army Vice Chief of Staff Jack Keane onto his interview show. Cheung pushed back, asking whether it "might be too sensitive." Lai ignored him. After the Hong Kong National Security Law took effect, Cheung tried again—this time urging Lai and colleagues not to break the law. The evidence speaks for itself: despite repeated warnings, Lai pressed on, only tweaking his methods slightly.
Defense counsel made it clear: Cheung wanted to limit the damage but had no real control. Yes, he held the CEO title. But actual power? Limited. He could only follow the "mastermind's" instructions and try to minimize the fallout from the coverage.
In court testimony, Cheung didn't mince words about being trapped. He called himself a "tool." Lai constantly issued editorial directives and had the final say on everything. Refusing wasn't really an option. Editorial autonomy existed only in the gaps—those rare moments when Lai hadn't issued orders. At the infamous "lunchbox meetings," Lai would spell out his political stance and tell everyone to fall in line.
About a month after the National Security Law came into force, both Cheung and Chan worried they were heading into legal danger. They opposed some of Lai's moves. Lai went his own way and dismissed their concerns.
Chan's Impossible Choice
Deputy publisher Chan Pui-man faced the same crushing dynamic. When Lai proposed using Apple Daily to mobilize a "one person, one letter" campaign urging Trump to intervene, Chan did raise objection. Lai pushed ahead anyway.
During her testimony, Chan revealed Lai went even further. He ordered her to compile a "Shit list"—a sanctions target list naming HKSAR officials and political figures. This dragged her beyond editorial work into outright political action.
The mitigation hearing added new details about Chan's predicament. Her lawyer said she tried blocking controversial articles from publication, had even considered resigning early to escape Apple Daily. But serious illness and mounting treatment costs trapped her. She faced financial hardship and needed the paycheck to survive. So she stayed.
Chan Pui-man expressed deep regret for abandoning journalistic principles. She'd wanted to quit Apple Daily, but mounting medical bills for serious illness left her no choice but to stay.
In her mitigation letter, she expressed profound regret for failing to stand firm on journalistic principles.
The pleas from Cheung and Chan expose the human cost of working under Lai's boulder-like pressure. Unable to uphold their principles, they were dragged onto an illegal path and ended up behind bars. Little wonder both pleaded guilty and turned prosecution witnesses against their former boss. After years of submission, testifying became their final act of resistance.
Lai Ting-yiu
What Say You?
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
Trump is a master of staging a "television reality show," and his nationwide address this morning was filled with theatrical flair. His chief aim was to impress the American public with a sense that the US military wields overwhelming power—decimating a longtime foe threatening the nation—and that he alone leads this victorious force.
Yet the specifics—actual battlefield gains, ceasefire timing, negotiation progress, next steps, or reopening the Strait of Hormuz—were all vague or glossed over. Trump carefully crafted narrative designed to build a grand finale for his imminent exit.
Trump’s war speech sold a big win. US media saw big gaps.
The New York Times, ever sharp, reviewed the string of dazzling claims he made and found several numbers heavily exaggerated. Reuters also noted that on several unresolved issues, Trump skimmed past or ignored them altogether, apparently trying to avoid the impression of unfinished or failed efforts.
Trump’s message selection was clearly intentional. He emphasized the war lasted about 30 days and culminated in a massive victory, contrasting this with the long, grueling Vietnam and Iraq Wars—to showcase strength and efficiency. Yet whether the US actually won remains mostly rhetoric. The New York Times compared his cited achievements with reality and found stark contradictions.
Negotiation Claims vs. Reality
First, Trump claimed negotiations with Iran were ongoing and had earlier said Iran was "begging" for a ceasefire. The New York Times reported that Iran’s government clearly stated it had no intention of substantive talks and denied requesting a ceasefire. Trump’s claim that "progress has been made in talks" was false. The paper cited US intelligence officials who assessed that Iran is not currently ready to reach an agreement.
Iran’s tough negotiating stance reflects its belief that it holds the upper hand in the conflict and is in no hurry for peace. It also deeply distrusts the United States, viewing Trump as unpredictable and lacking sincerity in negotiations.
Military Impact on Iran Questioned
Second, Trump asserted that the US military has severely weakened Iran's missile and drone launch capabilities, destroying large missile stockpiles and production facilities, thereby dismantling the military threat.
However, The New York Times reported that Iran still maintains a substantial arsenal of missiles and a significant number of drones. This enables Iran to continue recent attacks against Israel and Gulf countries. Earlier, Reuters cited US internal assessments showing that the US-Israel coalition has destroyed only about 30% of Iran's missiles. Another 30% have unknown status, while the remaining missiles remain intact—indicating Iran retains a considerable missile inventory.
Trump said Iran was crippled. Its missile stocks say otherwise.
Third, Trump claims that US military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities have achieved "great success," eliminating the nuclear threat to the United States.
The New York Times however, cites sources revealing that a stock of enriched uranium remains stored in tunnels and was not destroyed. The effectiveness of the June airstrike on the nuclear site last year remains unclear. As a result, the claim of " Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated" cannot be verified.
False Regime Change Claims
Fourth, Trump claimed that Iran's original leaders have all been eliminated and replaced by a new group of moderates, signaling that a "regime change" has taken place. Although he no longer names regime overthrow as a goal, by emphasizing this point he clearly implies "that objective has also been accomplished."
The New York Times strongly contradicted this, noting that the current government still wields significant authority and maintains full control over the country. Its "anti-American" stance remains unshaken as it continues to lead the "resistance against America." Trump also boasted that "the command structure of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is being weakened", another exaggerated claim of a major victory.
Ignored Issues and Vagueness
Beyond boasting about major achievements, Trump glosses over unresolved issues and brushes them aside with vague assurances.
Reuters noted that while he had previously pressured Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz—threatening warship escorts and even deployment of ground forces—this time he omits that from stated objectives, merely saying that once the conflict ends, Iran will naturally reopen the strait.
Moreover, Trump offers no concrete plan for handling Iran's enriched uranium. The so-called elimination of the nuclear threat remains empty rhetoric—talk that sounds like action but delivers nothing.
US media also highlight that Trump fails to clarify what comes next, including whether ground troops will be sent, leaving these questions unanswered. His bluster about "bombing Iran back to the Stone Age" reads as mere bravado aimed at strengthening his negotiation position. Having dealt with him repeatedly, Iran sees through these tactics and remains calm and unfazed.
In his nationwide address today, Trump listed a series of "brilliant achievements" against Iran to showcase the "great victories" the United States has won under his leadership—victories unseen in years. However, as several media outlets have pointed out, many of these claims are blown out of proportion. It’s like a struggling CEO who inflates the company’s results to reassure shareholders—here, the audience being the public.
What he’s doing is easy to understand: this war is teetering on the edge of collapse, and he has to set up a way to exit with some grace.
Lai Ting-yiu
