Traitor of Hong Kong Who Vowed “Fighting for America”: Jimmy Lai’s 20 Years Well Earned

After three years of proceedings, the court has spoken: Jimmy Lai, Hong Kong's most serious national security offender to date, will spend the next two decades

For the two charges of "conspiracy to collude with foreign or external forces" under the Hong Kong National Security Law, the court set a 15-year starting point based on the case's overall severity. An additional "sedition" charge carried a 21-month baseline.

The judges made clear that Lai wasn't just another defendant. The court stated explicitly that he was "the mastermind and driving force behind these conspiracies”, and therefore “the starting point” of his sentences was "enhanced". This bumped the two collusion charges from 15 to 18 years, while the sedition charge rose from 21 to 23 months. After accounting for concurrent sentences and minor adjustments, the final tally landed at 20 years.

The Evidence Speaks

Consider what the court had to work with.

In July 2019, Lai met with US Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. What happened next tells you everything you need to know about where his loyalties lay.

At a Foundation for Defense of Democracies symposium, Lai proclaimed that he and Hong Kong people were "fighting your (the US’s) war in your enemy's camp". Let that sink in: a Hong Kong resident explicitly stating he's fighting for a foreign power. A traitor who publicly declares he's "fighting for America" gets a 20-year sentence—and it's well deserved.

Essentially Life Imprisonment

Under the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, prisoners serving sentences for National Security Law offences cannot have their cases referred to the Long-Term Prison Sentences Review Board for early release consideration—unless the Commissioner of Correctional Services is satisfied that early release wouldn't compromise national security.

What does this mean in practice? Ordinary prisoners who behave well typically see their sentences reduced by roughly one-third—but even this has always been at prison authorities' discretion, not an automatic right. The explicit language in the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance essentially signals that major national security offenders are highly unlikely to receive sentence reductions for early parole.

Lai is already serving time for a separate fraud conviction with 2 years and 3 months remaining. The court ordered that the current sentence essentially adds 18 years to his fraud term. Translation: if his fraud appeal fails, Lai will almost certainly serve the full 20 years. At 78 years old, he'd be 98 when released—meaning he'll very likely spend the rest of his life in prison.

The Cooperators' Calculus

Lai's case involved two groups of serious offenders. One group pleaded guilty and became accomplice witnesses, testifying against Lai. This included Wayland Chan and Li Yu-hin—who had fled Hong Kong but were brought back—as well as former Apple Daily CEO Cheung Kim Hung, former associate publisher Chan Pui-man, and former chief writer Yeung Ching-kee.

Starting from a 15-year baseline, these five ultimately received sentences ranging from 6 years and 3 months to 7 years and 3 months. That represents reductions of 7 years and 9 months to 8 years and 9 months. Five years came off for pleading guilty (the standard one-third reduction), with additional cuts for serving as accomplice witnesses.

The other three former Apple Daily executives—former editor-in-chief Law Wai Kwong, former executive editor-in-chief Lam Man-chung, and former English edition editor-in-chief Fung Wai Kwong—only received the one-third reduction for pleading guilty. Each was sentenced to 10 years.

Early Release on the Horizon

But that's not the full picture. After serving their sentences partially, accomplice witnesses have the opportunity to receive approval from the Correctional Services Department for early parole—potentially cutting another third off their time. In the "NSL 47 subversion case," accomplice witness Chiu Ka-yin received early parole, setting a precedent.

The five accomplice witnesses mentioned above may actually serve just 4-plus to 5-plus years before release. Since they were arrested in June 2021 and have already been detained for 4 years and 8 months, parole could come soon. The math is revealing: the difference between pleading guilty without becoming an accomplice witness versus pleading guilty and cooperating can be more than half your sentence—approximately 5 years. The entire judicial system incentivizes offenders to become accomplice witnesses.

Justice Delivered, Damage Done

Looking back at the entire trial, Hong Kong courts convicted and heavily sentenced the principal offender based on substantial and sufficient evidence. This is what judicial justice looks like. Lai didn't just collude with foreign governments, demanding sanctions against the Central and SAR governments—he actively tried to promote what he called "zhibao" (regime collapse) in China. His intentions were vicious from the start.

But the real damage goes deeper. Lai weaponized his own media outlets to incite subversive thoughts against the government, mobilizing large numbers of young people to take to the streets in 2019. Hundreds of rioters who believed Lai's political propaganda participated in riot after riot, ultimately getting arrested and imprisoned. Large numbers of black-clad rioters also fled overseas to escape prosecution, unable to ever return to Hong Kong.

Lai's poisoning of young minds and the damage he inflicted on Hong Kong society are too numerous to catalog. Twenty years' imprisonment is insufficient to compensate for his crimes.

The West's Selective Outrage

Before and after sentencing, foreign forces have been attacking Hong Kong extensively, with some even claiming they'll "rescue" Jimmy Lai. Make no mistake: Lai was arrested in his own country for violating national security laws and, after a fair trial, was sentenced. This is what the rule of law looks like in action.

Now contrast this with what happened to Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who was illegally invaded and arrested by the United States, then taken back to America for trial. That's what a brutal trampling of international law looks like. Western political activists are so interested in rescuing Lai, yet no one's interested in rescuing Maduro. The hypocrisy is stunning.

What kind of logic are these people operating on? The answer is simple: wherever their American masters waves their flags, they follow. Logic doesn't enter the equation.

Lo Wing-hung

Bastille Commentary

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

America's double standards sometimes reach a truly appalling level. The US constantly presents itself as the world's defender of human rights — yet when the bodies pile up, human lives don’t seem to count.

On February 28 — the first day of joint US-Israel strikes on Iran — a girls' elementary school in Minab, in southern Iran, was hit. Local officials reported at least 175 deaths. More than 160 of the dead were female pupils.

Washington's first move was to dodge responsibility entirely. Trump suggested the school had been struck by inaccurate Iranian munitions. On March 7, aboard Air Force One, he told reporters: "In my opinion, based on what I've seen, that was done by Iran."

As the controversy grew, Trump changed his tune and claimed ignorance. Then Iran released images of missile debris recovered from the scene — clearly showing a US-made Tomahawk cruise missile, with the words "Made in USA" visibly inscribed on it.

Evidence Written on the Missile

Trump still dug in on March 9. At a press conference in Miami, asked directly whether it was a Tomahawk cruise missile that struck the girls' school, he insisted: "A Tomahawk is very generic. It's sold to other countries. Iran has some Tomahawks, and they want more. But whether it's Iran or somebody else, a Tomahawk is very commonly used." He added that the matter was under investigation.

Those claims were clearly baseless. Neither Iran nor Israel possesses Tomahawk missiles — the United States is effectively the sole operator. Tomahawk exports are strictly controlled; aside from the US, reportedly only Australia and the United Kingdom field these missiles, and there is absolutely no possibility either would sell them to Iran.

In the end, The New York Times — citing a preliminary US military investigation — reported that the girls' school was indeed struck by US forces. Military intelligence personnel had relied on outdated targeting data, mistaking the school for an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps facility. Tomahawk cruise missiles finished the job, causing devastating casualties.

What makes it worse: the US military carried out a double-tap strike. A second attack arrived just minutes after the first hit on the school — a tactic classically associated with killing first responders. With the evidence overwhelming and the truth impossible to conceal, the US appears to have pre-emptively leaked the findings, acknowledging responsibility in hopes of containing the fallout.

A Front Page the World Won't Forget

The damage is done regardless. Striking an elementary school with cruise missiles has outraged people around the world. Iran's English-language newspaper, the Tehran Times, ran portraits of the more than 160 dead schoolgirls across its entire front page, under the headline: "Trump, Look Them in the Eyes."

Whether intentional or the result of faulty intelligence, this attack may well constitute a war crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 8 of the Rome Statute lays out the key conditions clearly.

I. Existence of Armed Conflict

There must be an international armed conflict, and the act must be closely related to that conflict. Ordinary domestic disturbances do not qualify.

II. Victims Must Be Protected Persons

The targets must not be persons directly participating in hostilities — such as civilians, the wounded, and prisoners of war. Protected civilian property, including hospitals and schools, falls under the same prohibition.

III. Serious Violation of International Law

The act must constitute a grave breach of international humanitarian law. It must also have been criminalised under treaty or customary law.

The United States launched a war without UN authorisation — a serious violation of international law — and then missile-struck children who should be protected under the laws of armed conflict. That conduct is potentially criminal as a war crime. Washington readily intervenes in the affairs of other nations for all manner of reasons, yet brushes its own crimes aside with barely a word.

Make no mistake: no US military personnel will be held accountable for this massacre of Iranian schoolchildren. Not the intelligence officers who gathered the faulty data. Not the heads of the relevant intelligence agencies. Not the generals who ordered strikes in that area. Not the Secretary of Defense. Not the President himself. 

This episode carries a pointed message for Hong Kong. When those who have fled abroad continue to eagerly seek meetings with senior US government officials, urging them to keep sanctioning Hong Kong officials or demanding the release of Jimmy Lai, they would do well to remember: these American officials have blood on their hands. They start wars against other countries without justification.

Lo Wing-hung