Jimmy Lai, founder of the Next Digital, was recently convicted on three counts, including conspiracy to collude with foreign forces and conspiracy to publish seditious publications. Sentenced to 20 years in prison, he has become a focal point of international support. However, several former senior editorial staff of Apple Daily in the same case were also handed heavy sentences ranging from 6 years and 9 months to 10 years. Among them, former Editor-in-Chief Ryan Law, former Executive Editor-in-Chief Lam Man-chung, and former English Edition Editor-in-Chief Fung Wai-kong were deemed by the court to have committed “serious crimes”, with 15 years set as the starting point for their sentencing.
The question naturally follows: What roles did they play in the case to be placed within such a severe sentencing framework?
- Ryan Law was the Editor-in-Chief, primarily responsible for the digital edition’s editorial work.
- Lam Man-chung was the Executive Editor-in-Chief, overseeing the newspaper’s editorial operations; as print media declined, much of the paper’s content was adapted from digital reports.
- Fung Wai-kong wrote commentaries under the pen name “Lo Fung” and became the English Edition Editor-in-Chief in June 2020, with the English content also primarily consisting of translated digital articles.
Within the newspaper’s hierarchy, they belonged to editorial management, responsible for daily news operations and assignment coordination. They did not necessarily hold the same overarching decision-making power as Jimmy Lai or former CEO Cheung Kim-hung.
The prosecution’s case regarding their “criminality” centred on their participation in weekly planning meetings to prepare upcoming coverage, daily pre-editorial meetings to decide front-page content, and post-printing “critique sessions” to review the paper’s performance. These processes are the standard operational procedures of any news organisation.
Nevertheless, during sentencing, the court did not make a clear distinction between their actual power, decision-making roles, or levels of responsibility. Instead, it applied a “one-size-fits-all” approach, using the 15-year mark for “serious crimes” as the starting point. While the three received a one-third reduction to 10 years for pleading guilty, they were denied further reductions as they did not provide evidence to assist the prosecution under Article 33 of the National Security Law. Ultimately, their sentences were even heavier than those of former CEO Cheung Kim-hung—Lai’s right-hand man since the paper’s founding—who served as a prosecution witness and received a reduced sentence of 6 years and 9 months.
Sentencing principles have long emphasised proportionality and the distinction of roles. When editorial executives are categorised under “serious offences” simply for participating in routine editorial meetings and layout decisions, it suggests that the daily professional duties of journalism are being equated to leading criminal acts—a conclusion that is frankly staggering.
Even more concerning is that the court appeared to give almost no weight to various mitigating factors. Ryan Law was a director of the Apple Daily Charitable Foundation and actively involved in public welfare. Of the over 160 articles cited in the case, only three were linked to Lam Man-chung, whose character was highly praised in a mitigation letter by a retired High Court judge. Fung Wai-kong was not a core decision-maker and did not participate in the “Lunchbox Meetings”, which were led by Jimmy Lai for setting internal strategies and were subsequently used as evidence against Lai. These differences in background and involvement ultimately failed to alter the sentencing framework.
Ultimately, this is a political prosecution. When the daily operations of a news outlet are branded as a threat to national security, the law is being weaponised by the regime to suppress dissent, leaving the city in a state of “chilling silence”. Following the sentencing, several local organisations for media practitioners and journalists remained silent. Even Selina Cheng, chairperson of the Hong Kong Journalists Association—usually vocal for the industry—stated: “I’m not free to speak my mind on the Apple Daily sentencing.” Silence itself reflects the current environment.
The editorial management in the Apple Daily case were originally just journalists performing their duties, much like millions of other working professionals in society. They have elderly parents and children; they lack vast resources, yet they face long prison terms and heavy financial pressure. They now facing prolonged imprisonment have young children or elderly parents at home. Needless to say, they do not have vast resources to fund legal battles, and their families’ finances have already collapsed as a result of this case
In an era where power brooks no dissent, we can at least choose to hold on to our decency, to stand with those who are persecuted and to support one another through adversity. In difficult times, the least we can do is ensure they know they have not been forgotten.