Beijing Crushes Dissent: Jimmy Lai Silenced as Freedom Dies in Hong Kong

Paul Riverbank, 2/9/2026Jimmy Lai's harsh sentence signals the chilling end of free journalism in Hong Kong.

Twenty years. That was the number fixed by three handpicked judges, each loyal to the national security regime that’s redrawn the lines of what passes for justice in Hong Kong. The crime: conspiracy, sedition, collusion with foreign forces. All the language of high politics, but in this case, all trained on a newspaper owner whose life’s work, Apple Daily, once had the city’s officials perpetually on edge. Justice, as the authorities insist, or a chilling lesson to dissenters? You could see the argument written in the worried faces outside, scrawled on the cardboard signs: “He speaks not just for this city, but for those voiceless in China too.” One man, sleep-deprived and defiant, muttered, “Better a few nights cold here than closed up for good, like he will be.”

Inside, the proceedings felt coldly transactional — judgment rendered by functionaries elevated not for independence, but for reliably executing the law’s sternest measures. The verdict spelled the end of an era, not merely for Lai, but for a model of journalism known for its irritant questions and irreverent headlines. The judges termed him the ‘mastermind’ of foreign subversion, quoting emails and columns as evidence. Lai, for his part, stood unmoved, denying each point for 52 days on the stand.

It’s not just his age — although that, and the reported heart palpitations and blood pressure spikes, lend the sentence a somber quality. Human rights monitors have called it “a death sentence in all but name,” a phrase echoed in whispers by his supporters and condemned in strong terms by rights groups abroad. Elaine Pearson, speaking for Human Rights Watch, didn’t mince words about the injustice of the outcome. Even as the city’s authorities insist on the fairness of the trial, the presence of armored cars and sniffer dogs lent proceedings the air of a show trial.

By midday, headlines from Taipei and London were echoing each other in their outrage. In the UK Parliament, Keir Starmer reported he’d pressed Xi Jinping in person on Lai’s case. Taiwan’s government, never shy to weigh in, called the penalty “harsh” and criticized the hollowing of freedoms that brought Hong Kong fame. There was even a response from Donald Trump — characteristically blunt, expressing regret and referencing his own appeals to Xi.

This case, observers agree, isn’t just about one man’s fate. Apple Daily’s closure, in the wake of mass arrests and asset seizures, marked a broader retreat: reporters relocated, editors silenced, archives deleted in haste. Of Lai’s colleagues, more than a few are still awaiting sentencing. And the chilling effect on younger reporters is unmistakable; few now see journalism as a shield.

Official Beijing has stayed on script: justice delivered, social order restored, law purely enforced. They flatly reject that Lai’s a political prisoner, asserting the trial turns on real crimes, not stifled opinions. “Journalism must not be a smokescreen for conspiracy,” read one state media editorial, if anyone was still reading that sort of thing on the street.

As dusk fell, some die-hards remained camped by the courthouse, packing up their signs and bedding in silence. “The conscience of Hong Kong,” one young woman said of Lai, tears streaking dust on her cheek. It’s a phrase that resonates in the city’s cafes and newsrooms, even as many wonder — when the judges are chosen and the laws rewritten — whether that conscience now has anywhere left to speak.

For those on the outside watching, the wider question lingers. Negotiations may follow, perhaps on humanitarian grounds; appeals can still be filed. But the landscape has shifted, the threshold for dissent shrunken. All that remains, said an old news vendor closing up shop, is to see who dares to speak up next, and if anyone’s left to listen.

There’s a hush these days near Hong Kong’s High Court, but on Monday, it was anything but quiet. Rows of folding chairs lined the pavement, scattered with blankets and paper cups — volunteers had taken turns through the night, camped out in vigil for Jimmy Lai. He’s 78 now, slender, almost frail, with a shock of grey hair and a habit of meditative prayer; yet through the courthouse windows he could be glimpsed waving, calm amid the spectacle.Twenty years. That was the number fixed by three handpicked judges, each loyal to the national security regime that’s redrawn the lines of what passes for justice in Hong Kong. The crime: conspiracy, sedition, collusion with foreign forces. All the language of high politics, but in this case, all trained on a newspaper owner whose life’s work, Apple Daily, once had the city’s officials perpetually on edge. Justice, as the authorities insist, or a chilling lesson to dissenters? You could see the argument written in the worried faces outside, scrawled on the cardboard signs: “He speaks not just for this city, but for those voiceless in China too.” One man, sleep-deprived and defiant, muttered, “Better a few nights cold here than closed up for good, like he will be.”Inside, the proceedings felt coldly transactional — judgment rendered by functionaries elevated not for independence, but for reliably executing the law’s sternest measures. The verdict spelled the end of an era, not merely for Lai, but for a model of journalism known for its irritant questions and irreverent headlines. The judges termed him the ‘mastermind’ of foreign subversion, quoting emails and columns as evidence. Lai, for his part, stood unmoved, denying each point for 52 days on the stand.It’s not just his age — although that, and the reported heart palpitations and blood pressure spikes, lend the sentence a somber quality. Human rights monitors have called it “a death sentence in all but name,” a phrase echoed in whispers by his supporters and condemned in strong terms by rights groups abroad. Elaine Pearson, speaking for Human Rights Watch, didn’t mince words about the injustice of the outcome. Even as the city’s authorities insist on the fairness of the trial, the presence of armored cars and sniffer dogs lent proceedings the air of a show trial.By midday, headlines from Taipei and London were echoing each other in their outrage. In the UK Parliament, Keir Starmer reported he’d pressed Xi Jinping in person on Lai’s case. Taiwan’s government, never shy to weigh in, called the penalty “harsh” and criticized the hollowing of freedoms that brought Hong Kong fame. There was even a response from Donald Trump — characteristically blunt, expressing regret and referencing his own appeals to Xi.This case, observers agree, isn’t just about one man’s fate. Apple Daily’s closure, in the wake of mass arrests and asset seizures, marked a broader retreat: reporters relocated, editors silenced, archives deleted in haste. Of Lai’s colleagues, more than a few are still awaiting sentencing. And the chilling effect on younger reporters is unmistakable; few now see journalism as a shield.Official Beijing has stayed on script: justice delivered, social order restored, law purely enforced. They flatly reject that Lai’s a political prisoner, asserting the trial turns on real crimes, not stifled opinions. “Journalism must not be a smokescreen for conspiracy,” read one state media editorial, if anyone was still reading that sort of thing on the street.As dusk fell, some die-hards remained camped by the courthouse, packing up their signs and bedding in silence. “The conscience of Hong Kong,” one young woman said of Lai, tears streaking dust on her cheek. It’s a phrase that resonates in the city’s cafes and newsrooms, even as many wonder — when the judges are chosen and the laws rewritten — whether that conscience now has anywhere left to speak.For those on the outside watching, the wider question lingers. Negotiations may follow, perhaps on humanitarian grounds; appeals can still be filed. But the landscape has shifted, the threshold for dissent shrunken. All that remains, said an old news vendor closing up shop, is to see who dares to speak up next, and if anyone’s left to listen.