Connect with us

Asia

Profile: Jimmy Lai, Hong Kong’s pro-democracy media mogul

A 78-year-old individual, having spent 20 years in jail, had been a key figure in promoting democratic values in the territory previously under British rule.

A Hong Kong court has handed down a 20-year prison sentence to Jimmy Lai, a prominent pro-democracy media figure, for allegedly colluding with foreign forces under the national security law imposed by China.

As the most high-profile individual to be charged under this law, the 78-year-old Lai's conviction in December has drawn significant attention. The law, introduced in 2020, was a response to the widespread pro-democracy demonstrations that took place in Hong Kong in 2019.

The national security law has been criticized for its broad scope, which encompasses a wide range of activities deemed subversive or secessionist by the Chinese government, including participating in protests and chanting certain slogans. While Beijing argues that the law is necessary for maintaining stability, critics argue that it has had a chilling effect on dissenting voices.

Lai, who has been praised by the pro-democracy movement for his advocacy, has long been viewed with suspicion by the Hong Kong authorities and the Chinese government. Through his Apple Daily newspaper, he provided a platform for Hong Kong residents to express their desire for greater freedoms and criticize the Chinese government.

On Monday, when the judge delivered the verdict, Lai remained calm, smiling and nodding in response. Despite being detained since December 2020, Lai has consistently maintained his innocence, stating that his actions were motivated by a desire to protect the values and freedoms that he believes are fundamental to Hong Kong's identity.

The Hong Kong government maintains that Lai's trial was conducted fairly and in accordance with the law, whereas critics argue that the case highlights the manipulation of the city's legal system to suppress political dissent.

Lai's family has expressed worry over his declining health while in custody, with his son Sebastien stating in an August interview with the BBC that a five-year prison sentence would be equivalent to a life sentence for his father, a British national.

Human rights organizations have also denounced the sentencing, describing it as a de facto life sentence considering Lai's advanced age.

Sebastien has also spoken out against UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, criticizing his failure to secure Lai's release during his visit to China in January, and stating that the values the UK represents are being imprisoned alongside his father.

Lai emerged as a prominent advocate for democracy and a vocal critic of the Chinese government in the former British territory, gaining recognition as a key figure in the pro-democracy movement.

In a 2020 interview with the BBC, conducted just hours before his arrest, the individual described himself as having an inherently rebellious nature, citing his personality as a key aspect of his character.

Lai's birthplace was Guangzhou, a city located in southern China, where he was born into a wealthy family that suffered significant financial losses following the communist takeover in 1949.

Jimmy Lai, in a gray suit and black pants, poses for a photograph during an interview with AFP news agency in Hong Kong
Lai is on trial for breaching national security and colluding with foreign forces

At the age of 12, Lai made a daring escape from his village in mainland China, traveling to Hong Kong as a stowaway aboard a fishing vessel.

Through a combination of odd jobs and working in a small clothing shop, Lai was able to teach himself English, eventually transitioning from a low-level position to become the founder of a multimillion-dollar business empire, which included the international clothing brand Giordano.

The success of the Giordano chain was substantial, but a pivotal moment came in 1989 when China deployed tanks to quell pro-democracy protests in Beijing's Tiananmen Square, prompting Lai to embark on a new path as both a democracy activist and entrepreneur.

Following the Beijing demonstrations and subsequent massacre, he began penning critical columns and founded a publishing house that would go on to become a major force in Hong Kong.

After China threatened to close his mainland stores, prompting him to sell the company, Lai introduced a series of pro-democracy publications, including the digital magazine Next and the popular Apple Daily newspaper.

Lai, dressed in a gray suit and beige pants, walks handcuffed and flanked by three police officers to a police van
Lai is among the most prominent people charged under Hong Kong's controversial national security law

Amid a media environment in Hong Kong increasingly wary of Beijing, Lai consistently spoke out against Chinese authorities through both his writing and publications.

As a result, he has become a figure of admiration for many in Hong Kong, who see him as a courageous individual who has taken significant risks to protect the city's freedoms.

In contrast, on the mainland, he is viewed as a threat to Chinese national security and is regarded as a "traitor" by some.

Lai has faced significant threats in recent years, including a firebombing incident at his residence and company headquarters, as well as an alleged assassination plot targeted at him.

Despite these threats, Lai continued to express his views openly, playing a key role in Hong Kong's pro-democracy protests, which resulted in his arrest on two occasions in 2021 for participating in unauthorized gatherings.

Following the implementation of Hong Kong's national security law by China in June 2020, Lai shared his concerns with the BBC, stating that the legislation marked a significant turning point for the region.

"The evil law takes effect and has buried the two systems," read the headlines on copies of Apple Daily in the newspaper's publishing office
Apple Daily was unafraid to be openly critical of the Chinese state

Lai is recognized for his straightforward approach and tendency to make bold statements, reflecting his unapologetic style.

In 2021, Lai made a public appeal to then-US President Donald Trump, requesting his assistance in supporting the territory in its struggles with China, with his newspaper Apple Daily publishing a front-page plea that concluded with a direct call for help from the President.

Lai's actions were driven by a sense of obligation to the city that had accepted him and enabled his achievements.

In an interview with AFP, he expressed his gratitude for the city's freedom, stating that it had brought him tremendous benefits, and now he felt it was his turn to reciprocate by standing up for that freedom.

Since 2020, Lai has faced a range of charges, including participating in unauthorised gatherings and fraud.

The case against Lai has garnered significant international scrutiny, prompting human rights organisations and foreign governments to call for his freedom.

Sebastien Lai has embarked on a global campaign to speak out against his father's detention, criticising Hong Kong for targeting traits that should be valued and recognised.

He had previously stated that his father's imprisonment was a result of speaking the truth, demonstrating bravery, and striving for liberty.

Asia

Emergency call recording reveals boy’s heroic swim to save family

A 13-year-old boy, Austin Appelbee, took action to secure assistance for his mother and siblings when they were pulled out into the ocean.

An audio recording has been made public by authorities, capturing a distress call made by a 13-year-old Australian boy who swam for an extended period to seek assistance for his family after they were caught in a strong current at sea in early February.

During the call, the boy, identified as Austin Appelbee, informs emergency services that his brother, Beau, 12, sister, Grace, eight, and their mother remain in the water, awaiting rescue.

Austin expresses concern for his family's well-being, stating that he is unsure of their current condition, which is causing him significant distress.

The teenager also reports feeling severely exhausted, a result of his prolonged and physically demanding effort to reach shore and call for help.

Following the call, Austin lost consciousness and was hospitalized, where he later received news that his mother, brother, and sister had been rescued approximately 14 kilometers offshore and were in good health.

Continue Reading

Asia

Australian opposition leader faces pressure after key staff member quits

The departure of a high-ranking colleague has created an opportunity for a potential challenge to Sussan Ley, who holds the distinction of being the first female leader of the Liberal party.

Sussan Ley, the first female leader of the Liberal Party, is facing renewed scrutiny following the departure of Angus Taylor, her shadow defence minister, from the party's leadership team.

Sussan Ley, a blonde haired woman with pearl earrings and glasses looks off camera while people in suits sit on a green leather bench behind her
Liberal leader Sussan Ley is facing an expected leadership challenge from Angus Taylor

Taylor's resignation is expected to pave the way for a potential challenge to Ley's leadership, with local media outlets suggesting he has been quietly working to unseat her for some time.

Ley's tenure has been marked by struggles, including a narrow victory over Taylor in a leadership contest last year, which was held in the aftermath of the party's worst-ever electoral performance.

The Liberal-National coalition, a partnership that dates back to the 1940s, has experienced significant instability under Ley's leadership, having split and reunited twice during her tenure.

On Wednesday, Taylor, a member of the party's conservative faction, announced his resignation from the leadership team, citing his commitment to continuing to serve the Liberal Party.

In a statement to reporters, Taylor expressed his disappointment with the party's inability to hold the current Labor government accountable, emphasizing the need to protect Australians' way of life and restore their standard of living.

Taylor stated that he does not believe Ley is capable of leading the party effectively, citing the need for a change in leadership.

It remains to be seen whether Taylor's allies within the shadow cabinet will follow his lead and resign from their positions.

Local media reports suggest that Taylor's supporters are planning to request a special party meeting to consider a spill motion, which would allow the party to reconsider its leadership.

If Taylor were to succeed in his bid for leadership, it would bring an end to the ongoing speculation surrounding Ley's tenure, which has been marred by uncertainty.

The coalition's most recent split, which occurred in January, was followed by a reunification just days ago, after a dispute over hate speech laws, which Ley had supported in the wake of the Bondi Beach attack in December.

At the time of the initial split, Nationals leader David Littleproud explicitly stated that his party could not continue to serve in a shadow cabinet under Ley's leadership.

Recent polling data has shown the One Nation party, which secured 6% of the national vote in the previous election, surpassing the Coalition to take second place behind Labor, while Ley's personal approval ratings remain low.

The coalition has yet to reach a consensus on the factors that contributed to its decisive election loss to Labor, which saw the Liberals suffer significant losses in major cities.

In the aftermath of the election, the coalition briefly split over disagreements on climate and energy policy, including its commitment to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, a policy that the Liberals later abandoned under pressure from the Nationals and their own right-wing faction.

The Nationals, which have a strong presence in rural areas and tend to lean more conservative than the Liberals, have been pushed further to the right in response to the surge in support for the One Nation party, according to political analysts, who note that this shift may hinder the Liberals' ability to appeal to centrist voters in urban areas.

Continue Reading

Asia

India sets 3-hour deadline for social media firms to remove illegal content

Concerns have been raised that the regulations may pose a difficulty for tech companies in terms of compliance and potentially lead to increased censorship.

In a significant update to its existing regulations, India has implemented new rules requiring social media companies to delete unlawful content within a three-hour window after being notified, a substantial reduction from the previous 36-hour timeframe.

A man stands on the right side of the frame, holding a mobile phone to his ear. He is wearing a light-coloured short-sleeved shirt and dark trousers and appears to be looking ahead while speaking. Behind him is an illustrated wall showing the outline of India filled with oversized social media and tech logos, including YouTube, Google, Gmail, WhatsApp, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Yahoo and Google Drive.
India has taken several steps in recent years to tighten oversight of online speech

These revised guidelines, set to come into effect on February 20, will apply to prominent platforms such as Meta, YouTube, and X, as well as content generated using artificial intelligence.

The government has not provided a specific reason for shortening the deadline for removing objectionable content.

Critics, however, are concerned that this move may be part of a broader effort to increase oversight of online content, potentially leading to censorship in a country with over a billion internet users, which is the world's largest democracy.

In the past, Indian authorities have utilized existing Information Technology rules to direct social media platforms to remove content deemed illegal under laws related to national security and public order, granting them broad authority over online content.

According to transparency reports, Indian authorities requested the removal of more than 28,000 URLs or web links in 2024, which were subsequently blocked.

The BBC has sought comment from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology regarding the latest amendments, while Meta has declined to comment; the BBC has also reached out to X and Google, the owner of YouTube, for their response.

The updated regulations also introduce new guidelines for AI-generated content, marking a significant development in the country's approach to regulating online material.

For the first time, Indian law defines AI-generated content, including audio and video that has been created or altered to appear realistic, such as deepfakes, while excluding ordinary editing, accessibility features, and genuine educational or design work.

Platforms that allow users to create or share AI-generated content must clearly label it, and where possible, add permanent markers to facilitate tracing its origin.

Once labels are added to AI-generated content, companies will not be permitted to remove them; furthermore, they must utilize automated tools to detect and prevent the dissemination of illegal AI content, including deceptive or non-consensual material.

Technology experts and digital rights groups have expressed concerns regarding the feasibility and implications of the new regulations.

The Internet Freedom Foundation has stated that the shortened timeline will effectively transform platforms into "rapid fire censors," highlighting the potential risks associated with the updated rules.

The group has argued that the extremely short deadlines will eliminate the possibility of meaningful human review, forcing platforms to rely on automated removals, which may lead to over-removal of content.

Anushka Jain, a research associate at the Digital Futures Lab, has welcomed the requirement for labeling AI-generated content, suggesting that it could enhance transparency; however, she has also cautioned that the three-hour deadline may push companies towards complete automation.

Jain has noted that companies are already struggling to comply with the 36-hour deadline due to the need for human oversight, and that a fully automated process may result in the censorship of legitimate content.

Prasanto K Roy, a Delhi-based technology analyst, has described the new regulations as "perhaps the most extreme takedown regime in any democracy," highlighting the challenges associated with compliance.

Roy has stated that meeting the new requirements will be "nearly impossible" without extensive automation and minimal human oversight, as the tight deadline leaves little room for assessing the legitimacy of removal requests.

Regarding the labeling of AI-generated content, Roy has acknowledged the positive intention behind the regulation but has also noted that reliable and tamper-proof labeling technologies are still in development.

The BBC has requested a response from the Indian government regarding the concerns raised by technology experts and digital rights groups.

Continue Reading

Trending