Former Hong Kong chief executive Leung Chun-ying (梁振英) has chosen a curious moment to speak candidly. Days after the Hong Kong court delivered its 855-page verdict against pro-democracy media mogul Jimmy Lai (黎智英), Leung wrote a lengthy post on Facebook explaining — without embarrassment and with a hint of pride — how he spent years privately summoning major corporations to squeeze the advertising lifeblood out of the Apple Daily until it was “compressed to near zero.”
When he was still in office, Leung denied doing this, but with Lai convicted and the newspaper dead, he called it reflection.
It is an extraordinary confession because it confirms what Hong Kong officials spent a decade dismissing as paranoia: The territory’s most outspoken newspaper was not defeated by the market, readers, nor law alone, but by deliberate political pressure from the very top.
Leung framed the action as necessary — even admirable. Lai, in his view, was simply too influential, too dangerous and too effective to be left to the market. Therefore, his punishment should be understood not in narrow legal terms, but in the grander logic of political impact. In other words, guilt was measured not by statute, but by usefulness to the cause.
What makes the confession remarkable is not its cruelty, but its timing. Leung waited until the defendant was already convicted, long imprisoned, old and sick. Only then did he feel safe enough to explain how power really worked. Only then could he say aloud that law was never the main instrument — that economic strangulation, intimidation of advertisers and “early struggle” were preferable to courts, and that relying on legislation alone was never enough.
It is not the language of a former leader reflecting on mistakes, it is the language of someone reassuring the system that it had been right all along.
The irony is inescapable. For years, the territory was told that its decline began in 2020, with the implementation of Hong Kong’s National Security Law. Before that, some thought there was still rule of law, press freedom and a functioning version of “one country, two systems.” Leung’s post blew up that comforting fiction.
He described actions taken years earlier, when the Basic Law was supposedly intact, courts were still trusted and the system was still being sold to the world — and to Taiwan — as proof that freedom and authoritarianism could coexist.
Leung’s confession reveals that even at the height of Hong Kong’s supposed autonomy, its leader saw nothing wrong with using executive influence to punish a newspaper for its stance, or in redefining patriotism as loyalty not to the country, but to the ruling party.
He now urges society to learn the “lesson” of Lai: Next time, do not wait for trials; crush dissent earlier, more decisively and more creatively. Law, in this telling, is not a shield, but a finishing touch.
This shows Taiwan what the “successful” version of “one country, two systems” looked like, even before its formal burial: a territory where media could be suffocated without a single court order, where a chief executive could deny such conduct while in office and boast of it afterward and where a publisher’s crime was not what he did, but how much influence he had.
Leung has done something rare. In trying to justify the destruction of Lai and Apple Daily, he has stripped away the last illusion. Hong Kong did not lose its freedoms suddenly in 2020. It lost them gradually, methodically and with the quiet approval of leaders who believed that law existed to serve power, not restrain it.
If this is the system some still urge Taiwan to trust, then Leung’s “confession” should be required reading, not as history, but as warning.
John Cheng is a retired businessman from Hong Kong now living in Taiwan.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
On Monday, the day before Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) departed on her visit to China, the party released a promotional video titled “Only with peace can we ‘lie flat’” to highlight its desire to have peace across the Taiwan Strait. However, its use of the expression “lie flat” (tang ping, 躺平) drew sarcastic comments, with critics saying it sounded as if the party was “bowing down” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Amid the controversy over the opposition parties blocking proposed defense budgets, Cheng departed for China after receiving an invitation from the CCP, with a meeting with
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
RSS