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?
** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **
Whether a genuine US-Iran ceasefire can be achieved depends entirely on the negotiations now underway. US Vice President Vance arrived in Switzerland Sunday morning; Iran's representatives were already on the ground ahead of him. One of the first thorny issues both sides must resolve is the Lebanon ceasefire — a knot that will not be easy to untangle. Israel has continued to "play games" right up to today, threatening to torpedo the talks at any moment.
VP Vance flew to Switzerland for US-Iran talks on Sunday — but not before furiously rebuking Israel for plotting to torpedo the deal.
The Washington Post has revealed that a US intelligence report warned Trump that Prime Minister Netanyahu, under intense domestic pressure, would quietly work to sabotage any US-Iran peace deal. Hu Xijin, former editor-in-chief of Global Times, has also noted that Netanyahu is adopting a "scorched earth" posture, and that this new test Trump faces is no less daunting than dealing with Iran itself.
At the same time, America's "Jewish lobby" is pushing hard to prevent Trump from making concessions to Iran. These groups are threatening to cut off campaign funding ahead of the midterm elections. A headache Trump can ill afford to ignore.
Netanyahu and his far-right allies are openly defying Trump, bombing Lebanon and blowing up the US-Iran agreement — leaving him trapped on all sides.
Like a dog off the leash: while the US and Iran talk, Israel keeps striking. Just as US and Iranian representatives sat down at the table, Israeli forces — in flagrant disregard of the ceasefire agreement with Hezbollah — launched fierce airstrikes on southern Lebanon. Numerous residential buildings destroyed, and 16 people killed. Iran had already shut the Strait of Hormuz once in response to Israel's continued strikes on Lebanon; if Israel refuses to stand down, the talks could collapse at any moment.
That, however, is precisely what Israel wants. Its calculated "game-playing" aims to reignite the conflict. The Washington Post, citing a US intelligence report, states that Israel has no interest in a ceasefire and is determined to press its assault on Hezbollah in Lebanon. A direct violation of a key provision amongst the US-Iran Memorandum of Understanding. Specifically, the requirement of a ceasefire in Lebanon. Trump had already warned Israel to stop firing, but Israel continues to act all on its own. Its intent to wreck the agreement is in plain sight.
According to the intelligence report's analysis, this behavior is tied directly to Israel's domestic politics. Netanyahu faces a general election in October and must demonstrate to voters that he refuses to follow Trump's lead and will not withdraw from Lebanon. Any sign of weakness would be political suicide, and his hold on power would be finished.
Netanyahu's political survival is, in fact, directly tied to the Lebanon campaign. Domestic polls show that more than 70% of Israelis support continuing the strikes against Hezbollah. Opposition leaders competing against him have loudly declared that "the fighting must not stop." Netanyahu must therefore prove himself more resolute and more aggressive on the Lebanon question than any rival.
The Washington Post quoted a US official as saying that even if Israel does not escalate its airstrikes on Beirut, simply digging in and refusing to withdraw from southern Lebanon would be enough to shatter the fragile US-Iran agreement. In other words, if Trump cannot rein in Netanyahu, the US-Iran negotiations are in serious jeopardy.
To keep the US-Iran deal from collapsing, Trump has confronted Netanyahu on several occasions. He reportedly used profanity during one phone call and most recently singled out Israel for direct criticism at the G7 summit. But Netanyahu invariably turns around and carries on as before: openly flouting the Memorandum of Understanding and challenging the authority of Trump's own signature.
Hu Xijin, former editor-in-chief of Global Times, remarked that the US-Iran peace agreement had barely landed before it was slapped in the face. The one to deliver that heavy blow was none other than America's closest ally, Israel. "Netanyahu is adopting a 'scorched earth' posture," Hu wrote. "Trump and his team are facing an unprecedented test — one that is arguably no less severe than the hostility they previously faced from Iran."
Israel's leadership has grown increasingly brazen in its defiance of Trump, making no attempt to hide its “insubordination”. Far-right National Security Minister Ben Gvir openly declared that while Israel respects the United States, it must make clear to the world that "the blood of our sons and the security of our citizens are not up for bargaining" in the US-Iran negotiations. He went further, crowing that "all of Lebanon must burn".
Vice President Vance witnessed such arrogance from Israeli officials and responded with fury. "Donald J. Trump is the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this moment in time," Vance thundered. "If I was in the cabinet of the Israeli government, I might not be attacking the only powerful ally that I have anywhere left in the entire world."
Vance further pointed out that two-thirds of Israel's defensive weapons come from the United States, and that America provides Israel with $4 billion in military aid each year. The message was unmistakable: without US support, Israel would be finished.
But Ben Gvir did not back down. Instead he retorted with a barely veiled threat: "Anyone who supports us will benefit; anyone who abandons us will suffer. So don’t threaten us." The remark was loaded with belligerence.
Hu Xijin noted that such open, mutual attacks between the US presidential team and senior Israeli officials are unprecedented in the history of US-Israel relations. He believes Netanyahu and the far-right are attempting to drag out the peace process "until the agreement collapses entirely," ultimately carving out a path of survival for themselves.
Their audacity in defying Trump stems from two calculations. First, they know Washington would not dare to simply abandon such a critical regional pawn and surrender its leverage over Middle Eastern states. Second, the American "Jewish lobby" remains a major source of Republican campaign funding — cut off that money supply, and the consequences for the GOP would be severe.
The reality is stark. Following the signing of the US-Iran Memorandum of Understanding, major organizations representing Jewish influence — including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the American Jewish Committee (AJC) — voiced fierce opposition. They argued that going to war with Iran had failed to eliminate the Iranian military threat, and that the deal instead consolidates the regime's power. Behind these organizations are no shortage of major Republican donors, who are exploiting the approaching midterm elections to pressure Trump by threatening to cut off campaign funding.
With Israel's hawks and America's "Jewish lobby" squeezing Trump from without and within, he finds himself trapped in a new dilemma. If he cannot withstand the pressure from Israel, the Iran negotiations will collapse and everything reverts to square one — war will have to resume. Yet Israel, emboldened by its leverage, will not stop causing disruption, and containing it is far from easy.
Such is the greatest test Trump faces today.
Lai Ting-yiu
