Reporters Without Borders (RSF) strongly condemns the 20-year prison sentence handed to Apple Daily founder and publisher Jimmy Lai on bogus charges. This amounts to a death sentence, as the health of the 78-year old British citizen — a global icon of press freedom held for five years in shocking conditions — is rapidly deteriorating. RSF calls on the UK and governments worldwide to intervene to secure Jimmy Lai’s immediate and unconditional release so he can finally return home and reunite with his family.

cross-posted from: https://mander.xyz/post/47134012

On 9 February 2026, Jimmy Lai was sentenced to 20 years in prison under Hong Kong’s draconian National Security Law, including spurious charges of "collusion with foreign forces” and conspiring to publish “seditious” material. Prosecutors cited more than 160 Apple Daily articles as examples of “seditious publications.” Forced to close by Hong Kong authorities in June 2021, Apple Daily was the territory’s largest mainstream independent newspaper, known for delivering independent reporting. His guilty verdict was delivered on 15 December 2025, but sentencing has been delayed by two months.

Jimmy Lai was tried alongside six former senior staff at Apple Daily. CEO Cheung Kim-hung received six years and nine months in prison; chief editor Ryan Law Wai-kwong, 10 years; executive editor-in-chief Lam Man-chung, 10 years; associate publisher Chan Pui-man, seven years; managing editor of the English edition Fung Wai-kong, 10 years; and lead editorial writer Yeung Ching-kee, seven years and three months. Two other co-accused, pro-democracy activist Chan Tsz-wah, and activist Andy Li, were respectively sentenced to six years and three months, and seven years and three months. Li is believed to be forcibly held in a high-security psychiatric institution in Hong Kong.

…

Since 2020, the Hong Kong government has prosecuted at least 28 journalists, eight of whom are currently detained. Hong Kong is ranked 140th in the 2025 RSF World Press Freedom Index, having plummeted down the rankings from 18th place in just two decades. China ranks 178th of the 180 countries and territories surveyed.

…

Web archive link

    • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      102·
      9 hours ago

      In before tankies show up to excuse China’s behavior as “anti-colonialism” and call everyone a sinophobe.

  • Ex Nummis@lemmy.worldEnglish
    241·
    13 hours ago

    I remember posting about how giving HK back to China would inevitably lead to this outcome.

    That was in the early 2000’s. So incredibly sad to see it happen exactly as predicted.

    • Bademantel@lemmy.worldEnglish
      113·
      11 hours ago

      It obviously sucks and the outcome was to be expected but what alternative would you propose?

      Continued British control would have meant maintaining territory acquired through the Opium Wars which China considered illegitimate. Given China’s position and growing power that likely would have required serious military confrontation. From a post-colonial perspective extending colonial rule also seems hard to justify. What alternative outcome do you think was realistically achievable under those conditions?

      • yucandu@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        10 hours ago

        But this is China extending its colonial rule. The people don’t want this. If they did they wouldn’t be trying so hard to crush democracy.

        • Bademantel@lemmy.worldEnglish
          51·
          9 hours ago

          I’m not disagreeing with you and an independent Hong Kong would’ve been nice but I’m talking about realistic options. Even without any military action Hong Kong was and remains dependent on China and I don’t see how it could survive without it.

      • Ex Nummis@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        10 hours ago

        Independence would have been the best possible outcome, although I agree it was unlikely at best.

    • crapwittyname@feddit.ukEnglish
      31·
      10 hours ago

      Iirc Hong Kong was on a lease to the British gov, which ended in 1999. I don’t know if giving it back was an option. Was there another choice the UK could’ve made?

      • 1Fuji2Taka3Nasubi@piefed.zipEnglish
        1·
        1 hour ago

        Hong Kong island and half of Kowloon was ceded to the UK permanently but they decided to give it back in 1997 anyway with the rest (which were leased for 99 years) probably because there is no practical way to only retain half of Hong Kong, there is no wall at the boundary and members of the same family might have lived at both sides, etc.

      • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        21·
        10 hours ago

        I knew a Brit that felt they should’ve kept it with violence, consequences be damned. So there was always the straight-up colonial option.

        They also supported Brexit.

          • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            3·
            10 hours ago

            There’s a few centuries of the British Empire gaming that concept available for reference, but yes. The British consider the undeclared war that resulted in Singapore to be a success.