Jimmy Lai's Farcical Self-Exposure: Admitting to Being Misled by His Own Apple Daily

The Farcical Criticism of "Reasonable Suspicion

On July 6, 2020, Lai posted on his personal Twitter account, accusing the Secretary for Justice of stating that police only needed "reasonable suspicion" for arrests. He further criticized this as implying that "no evidence of a crime is needed, only the police's imagination is sufficient for arrest," questioning, "What is this rule of law? Has Hong Kong become a police state?" This accusation was undoubtedly highly inflammatory, especially coming from the founder of Apple Daily. Lai's statement was a blatant attack on Hong Kong's rule of law and a smear campaign against the Hong Kong police.

However, when this post was presented as evidence in court, the judge, Justice Li Yunteng, swiftly exposed its absurdity. The judge pointed out that the principle of police arresting suspects based on "reasonable suspicion" has been a well-established principle of common law in Hong Kong, both before and after the handover, and is also the case in the UK. In other words, Lai's so-called "absurd rule of law" is actually a cornerstone of common law. His criticism was not only completely wrong but also revealed his ignorance of fundamental legal principles.

From "Misled" to "Ignorant": A Self-Contradictory Narrative

After being rebuked by the judge, Lai claimed in court that he had been misled by Apple Daily's reporting, leading to his aforementioned remarks. However, the defense immediately presented the relevant Apple Daily report and asked Lai to read it in court. The report clearly explained the legal meaning of "reasonable suspicion" and contained no misleading information. At this point, Lai's argument completely collapsed, and he had to admit that he wasn't misled by the report but was simply "ignorant."

The absurdity didn't end there. When the judge asked Lai if he had read the report, he initially insisted he had "read it," but after discovering that the report's content was accurate, he changed his statement again: "Actually, I didn't read that article. I wrote the post assuming I had read it." This inconsistent testimony raises doubts about whether he has memory problems or is simply fabricating excuses in court. A man who claims to want to "tell the world the truth" cannot even remember whether he read a relevant report, making it difficult to believe his so-called "truth."

The Hollow Accusation of a "Police State

The defense also cited Lai's criticism of the Hong Kong police in a September 2020 live broadcast. He claimed that the arrest of Lam Cheuk-ting and others in relation to the Yuen Long clashes demonstrated that Hong Kong had "no rule of law" and had become a "police state." When asked about the meaning of "police state," Lai explained it as "police can do anything; police have power that overrides the law." However, when the judge further questioned whether his statement specifically accused the police of "going beyond the rule of law" or even acting "with impunity," Lai backtracked, claiming, "That's your interpretation," and that he didn't mean it that way.

Lai, on the one hand, used inflammatory language to attack Hong Kong's rule of law and police, while on the other hand, he evaded responsibility for his statements in court, even directly denying his own position. This contradictory performance reflects his avoidance of responsibility and undermines the credibility of his statements.

Lessons from the Absurdity

Lai's "farce" reveals not only his ignorance of basic legal knowledge but also his selective understanding of facts and his shirking of responsibility. As a media founder, Lai should be responsible for the accuracy of his statements. However, he not only failed to verify facts before making criticisms but also openly admitted to being "ignorant" or "assuming he had read the report" in court. This is not only disrespectful to the court but also irresponsible to the public.

Ironically, Lai repeatedly emphasized wanting to "tell the world the truth," but his "truth" is based on ignorance and misunderstanding. His statements are not based on facts but on personal biases and even fabricated assumptions. How can such a person gain the world's trust?

Lai's courtroom performance offers an important lesson: in any public discussion, facts are the foundation of speech, and responsibility is the bottom line. When someone disregards facts and is unwilling to take responsibility, their so-called "pursuit of truth" becomes a farcical spectacle.

Finally, I can only say to Lai: ignorance is not a crime, but using ignorance as an excuse to shift blame onto others is truly shameful. The next time you claim to "tell the world the truth," please first read the articles you cite and understand the subject of your criticism; otherwise, your statements will continue to be a laughingstock, only attracting the world's contempt.