On December 15, 2025, the verdict in the case of Hong Kong&9;s former pro-democracy media tycoon Li Zhiying was announced. The image is a file photo. (Song Bilong / Dajiyuan)
[People News] In the Hong Kong court's proceedings regarding the Apple Daily case, the defendants have made pleas for leniency. Reports indicate that, aside from Li Zhiying, the other defendants have presented their own reasons in hopes of receiving reduced sentences. This is a natural human response; no one wants to be imprisoned, and even a single day less in jail is a positive outcome within a limited context.
However, in order to secure a reduced sentence, the defendants must meet the prosecution's and the court's requirements to a certain extent. The evidence they provide and whether it harms other defendants serve as crucial criteria for assessing whether the individuals involved maintain a moral baseline during the trial process. To achieve a lighter sentence, one might cooperate with the prosecution, admit to certain infractions, proactively explain the background of certain events, or even attribute some incidents to the newspaper's policies. These are all factual elements; one is involved and bears responsibility to the extent of their participation.
Nevertheless, if a defendant, in an effort to 'perform' well, shifts the blame for certain issues onto others or provides information that the prosecution has not yet uncovered, and that internal information could potentially harm other defendants, this transcends mere self-preservation. It becomes an act of undermining others for personal gain, which is something that individuals with basic integrity would avoid. Seeking the most lenient treatment while casting aspersions on colleagues in the name of self-protection is even more reprehensible; it signifies a decline in character.
The senior executives at Apple Daily have worked closely with Li Zhiying for a long time. They are required to follow the newspaper's stance and policies. Due to their strong performance, they earned Li Zhiying's recognition and were promoted to higher positions. Their loyalty to their duties was quite normal during ordinary times. At that moment, no one anticipated that the Chinese Communist Party would eventually reveal its hypocritical nature, nor did anyone foresee that Apple Daily would face a catastrophic downfall. They enjoyed the best treatment in Hong Kong's media sector and held a certain social standing, with their work yielding significant rewards.
Nevertheless, these senior executives remained loyal to Li Zhiying until the very end, which is commendable. At that time, they exhibited integrity, a fact recognised by the citizens of Hong Kong. In this respect, they fulfilled their responsibilities as Hong Kong residents.
Regarding their imprisonment, each individual faces different circumstances and must consider their own situations, which is understandable. What I mean is that as long as they uphold their principles and do not harm other defendants, how they advocate for themselves is their right. We also hope the court will consider reducing their sentences as much as possible, although everyone is aware of the current state of the courts in Hong Kong.
Among all the defendants, only Li Zhiying chose not to plead for leniency, which did not come as a surprise to us. Conversely, if Li Zhiying had pleaded like the others, he would no longer be the person we know. What does it mean to plead for leniency? It is to appeal to the executioner for mercy, asking them to show compassion and allow one to serve a shorter sentence and experience less physical and mental anguish.
While this may be understandable for an ordinary person, Li Zhiying is far from ordinary. He is a fierce and principled warrior who refuses to bow to his enemies. With his composed demeanour, Li Zhiying openly expresses his disdain for the authoritarian regime of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
I believe he has long recognised that no matter how he presents the facts, explains the background, or provides sufficient evidence, he will not receive any leniency. His imprisonment transcends personal consequences; it symbolises the CCP's brutal repression of the Hong Kong people's relentless struggle against authoritarianism. For the CCP, showing leniency towards Li Zhiying would imply tolerating future civil resistance movements in Hong Kong and even across mainland China. The concept of 'mercy' is absent from the CCP's lexicon—if the situation is unchangeable, why beg for mercy?
To seek a reduced sentence, one inevitably has to adopt a submissive tone, gauge the reactions of the prosecutors and judges, and may even be coerced into betraying colleagues, engaging in unsavoury actions that they find repugnant. Rather than endure such humiliation, it is preferable to stand tall, accept the circumstances, and bear the burden with composure.
Li Zhiying is a devout Catholic with a strong religious conviction and a commitment to bear the cross for the common people. He faces the looming misfortune with a determination to stand with Hong Kong. Before his imprisonment, he had already mentally prepared himself for significant physical and emotional suffering. After spending five years in a harsh prison environment, he is likely to face an even longer sentence following his conviction. He understands the risks involved, but he is ready to shoulder the burden alone.
From this perspective, it further emphasises the remarkable character of Li Zhiying, whose idealism and unwavering determination elevate him in our eyes. As we study history, we encounter numerous brave and resolute heroes who faced death fearlessly, and it is surprising to find that in contemporary Hong Kong, there exists a civilian representative who stands alongside the heroes of the past.
"When will the day come when we are all gone?" Li Zhiying has a deep love for Hong Kong and a strong aversion to the authoritarian rule of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). He demonstrates his courage by refusing to plead for leniency, showcasing a fearless opposition to the CCP and embodying a righteous spirit that stands against evil.
During the trial of the Apple Daily case, we witnessed the disgraceful behaviour of certain prosecutors and judges in Hong Kong. They acted according to the dictates of the CCP, disregarding the principles of common law, ignoring the facts, and fabricating charges, all with the intent of subjecting Hong Kong protesters to torture and fulfilling the political objectives set by the CCP. They are not true legal professionals; they are, in fact, the very lackeys of authoritarianism.
Earlier, during the civil unrest in Bangladesh, the public took violent action against military and police personnel; during the recent regime change in Venezuela, the government released 800 political prisoners in one fell swoop; and recently, in Iran, citizens have also risen up, marking the residences of officials, some of whom have already faced repercussions, while others will likely find themselves ensnared by the law in the future.
While we do not support violent retaliation, it is crucial to remember the names of these prosecutors and judges. Once Hong Kong is liberated, our first action should be to open the doors of the CCP's prisons to welcome back the champions of democracy. The second step is to compile a list of individuals prohibited from leaving Hong Kong, which will include all relevant prosecutors, judges, and every rogue from the establishment, ensuring that none are overlooked. They will then await the judgment of the people of Hong Kong—good deeds will be rewarded, and wrongdoings will be punished. When the time comes, all will be held accountable.
(Author's Facebook) △
News magazine bootstrap themes!
I like this themes, fast loading and look profesional
Thank you Carlos!
You're welcome!
Please support me with give positive rating!
Yes Sure!