The Hong Kong crackdown and the fight to free a pro-democracy publisher.

This week on "Firing Line."

He became Hong Kong's "rag to riches" success story, a stowaway from mainland China turned business tycoon.

After the Tiananmen Square massacre, Jimmy Lai founded Hong Kong's Apple Daily, a popular tabloid with a pro-democracy editorial stance.

In 2019, as protests escalated, Lai visited the White House.

But his criticism of Beijing and support for protests made him a target.

Now 77, Lai has spent nearly four years in jail and faces life in prison under Hong Kong's so-called national security law.

>> I'm prepared for the worst.

If the worst comes, that means the most effective way that I can bring the world's attention to Hong Kong.

>> This week, Lai took the stand in his own defense, just one day after a Hong Kong court sentenced 45 pro-democracy lawmakers and activists for up to 10 years.

What do Jimmy Lai's son, Sebastian, and attorney Jonathan Price say now?

>> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible in part by... And by the following.

Corporate funding is provided by Stevens, Inc. >> Sebastian Lai and Jonathan Price, welcome to "Firing Line."

>> Thank you for having us.

>> Sebastian, you have described your father as a man who, quote, "embodies Hong Kong's rise."

How did Jimmy Lai go from child stowaway on a fishing boat fleeing mainland China to becoming a media tycoon and the leading voice of Hong Kong's pro-democracy movement?

>> So, it's actually an incredibly beautiful story.

My father landed in Hong Kong when he was 12, having escaped communist China.

And the first day he arrived there, he had to work to pay back his smuggling fee, so he was put to work in a glove factory.

And at the end of his shift, the foreman saw him, saw this skinny boy fresh off the boat, and gave him a bit of money and said, "Go buy yourself some food."

So, Dad goes to the market, and as he tells it, when he went, he broke down.

He started crying because he had never seen so much food in his life, and he knew at that moment that he had a future.

And then in the next decade, he worked from a child laborer, went to become manager, and eventually buying his own plant and then founding a clothing company called Giordano.

And Giordano was tremendously successful, and that's what he was known for in Hong Kong.

And then the Tiananmen Square massacre happened.

>> Which has been referred to many, and you, as a political awakening for him.

>> Yeah, exactly.

>> Why?

>> When all the protests broke out for democracy in China, he was very hopeful that this was going to be a change.

All these students -- very moving, all these students going out and protesting and demanding democratic freedoms.

And then when the crackdown happened, I mean, it was devastating for him, but also many people in Hong Kong.

And he knew at that moment that though China was liberalizing economically, it wasn't going to liberalize socially.

And so he felt the need to stand up for these freedoms.

So he started Apple Daily.

And I still remember, as a kid, people would make fun of him.

"You know, go back to your factory floors."

And they made fun of him until Apple Daily became the biggest newspaper in Hong Kong.

>> And then they stopped.

>> And then they stopped, and they couldn't make fun of him anymore.

And then throughout the next 30 years, Dad and his journalists worked on the principle that if people choose freedom, then there's freedom.

And in the last 30 years, you know, our house was firebombed, and he's had death threats against him, people following him around, because he didn't just, you know, tell the truth about the Hong Kong government, but also about mobsters, corruption, organized crime and whatnot.

But throughout it all, he, you know, he woke up every day with enthusiasm and just kept going.

>> How did those conversations with his father and his mother and his brothers and sisters and his family and his friends and his family and his friends and his family, you know, the conversations that he had with his father and his brothers and his friends kept going?

>> How did those intimidation tactics impact you growing up as his son?

>> Thinking back, I mean, thinking back, obviously, it sounds horrible.

But at that time, because Dad wasn't scared of it, I wasn't scared, even throughout the firebombs, throughout all the threats and whatnot.

But he was a campaigner.

And everybody told him, "Look, you could have a very good life in London.

You're 73 at that point.

You should just go and campaign from abroad.

You'll be a better campaigner abroad."

But I knew that if he left, he'd be opening up his journalists for persecution.

And so he stayed and was arrested, and now they've kept him in solid confinement for the last four years, and his health has gotten much worse.

>> I want to ask you about that.

I want to -- Because he could -- he could spend the rest of his life in prison if he is convicted.

You have not seen him in person since 2020.

>> Yeah, I haven't been able to see him in the last four years.

>> He's a 77-year-old man with diabetes who has been in custody for almost four years, partly, at least in solitary confinement for extended periods of time, which there are reports that he is thinner.

What are your concerns about his condition?

>> So, at this point, it's very worrying because he could die at any point.

And all of this is aimed to break him.

It's to break his body, to break his spirit, and to break his mind.

>> Yet "The Washington Post" headline this week called him "defiant" in court, that while he may seem physically more frail, his spirit is unbroken.

Do you agree?

>> Yes, yes, and I think that gives me some -- it gives you some solace, you know, a bit of comfort that my father is still there, he is still fighting.

He is still strong.

He is still -- Yeah, he is still -- He's a fighter.

>> Is it a fair observation, given your father's testimony this week, that it may have seemed aimed to distance himself from actions of political activities?

Let me just give you a few examples based on the reporting.

"The New York Times" reported that he described being in a meeting with then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi, but he said, quote, "He barely spoke and didn't listen very intensely."

He is reported to have, when asked about appealing to foreign figures, including then-Vice President Mike Pence, with whom he had met in the White House, and also then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, whether he had appealed to them to influence government policy in China and Hong Kong, he is reported to have said, "Never."

He reportedly also said that the idea of outright Hong Kong independence was, quote, "crazy."

Jonathan, do his answers tell you, as a lawyer, anything about his strategy on the stand?

>> His answers tell me more about how pernicious the national security law is, because if he's being defensive over meetings that he doesn't deny having held, it's because he knows that his answers will be held against him.

The national security law seeks to criminalize simple discussions that he may have had with political figures from abroad, and it's a mark of how arbitrary it's being applied, that he's not confident enough what one might say in its application to know whether or not his answers are going to land him in further trouble.

It's been widely condemned, the national security law, as in breach of international standards, because of its arbitrariness, because of its vagueness, because you can be criminalized for a conspiracy simply for having a meeting and talking about the future of the country in which you live, which is what he was doing.

>> Just -- Sorry.

Just to add to that, as well, you know, this charge of collusion with foreign forces is completely ridiculous, unless we all believe that this nefarious benefit that he was asking for is democracy.

>> Yeah.

You said he stayed in Hong Kong because of his journalists, and I wonder -- Of course, he could have fled while he was on bail.

He had the means, and instead, he had the courage to stay.

What can you tell us about his character?

>> He always used to tell me that, you know, sometimes in life, you just got to bite down on your teeth and just do the right thing and not overthink it.

And so it was by no means easy.

You know, my father, again, at his age, he's a man who loves life and freedom.

You know, he's a man who still remembers that day when he arrived to Hong Kong and broke down because of all the food that he saw.

He's a man who would like to see the world, who would like to spend time with his grandchildren.

But he made a very brave, heroic decision.

And so throughout it all, he decided to stay, and that takes determination and grit and also a very clear idea of what is right and wrong, and that's always been current throughout his life.

>> Do you feel increased urgency after reports of him this week?

>> Yeah, yeah.

So it's heartbreaking for me to say this, but, you know, his body is breaking down.

He's being held in completely inhumane conditions, and actually the U.N.

Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, which is an entirely objective body, issued a very strong statement a week ago.

>> How significant is the U.N. calling a detention "unlawful and arbitrary" under four separate categories, Jonathan?

>> Well, it's significant because it's a rigorous process.

The Working Group has carefully examined and analyzed the submissions that were made about the national security law itself and about its application in this case, and they've concluded that the detention is arbitrary and unlawful.

It's arbitrary and unlawful because it is based upon the exercise of Jimmy Lai's fundamental rights and freedoms, and he must be released.

>> Jimmy Lai is one of more than 200 people who have been arrested under the controversial national security law that Hong Kong implemented in 2020.

This week, 45 other individuals were charged under this so-called national security law.

They were sentenced for engaging in pro-democracy activism, some of them for up to 10 years.

Your father is accused of colluding with foreign forces and publishing seditious material.

If the national security law targets all kinds of dissent, what is Lai's best defense?

>> It's difficult to know because you're left without a clear idea of what it is you're being accused of colluding about or conspiring to do, and these are depressingly widely used national security-type concepts which, in the hands of an autocratic regime like Hong Kong is becoming, are simply used to target critical or unfriendly voices.

So, the idea of how one defends against a case like that, it's a sort of category error.

I mean, you're in a parallel universe.

You're trying to work out what -- You're dealing with a -- You're trying to paint a moving train.

So, it's almost as if there is no defense.

You could say anything or nothing.

It's a wicked and disreputable way to treat a man.

>> Is this law fair?

>> Well, it is.

It is the application of laws contrary to international standards and law to achieve a predetermined result, and that result is to cow the population of Hong Kong through one of its most famous pro-democracy voices into the understanding that they cannot possibly speak out.

There is no other way than the way that's being imposed upon them by Beijing.

And if they try to pursue one, as the Hong Kong 47 did, they'll end up in prison just like Jimmy Lai is.

>> The trial has progressed slowly.

Delay tactics seem to be part of the strategy.

After this testimony this week, what happens next?

Jonathan.

>> So, the testimony will continue.

So, Mr. Lai is currently giving his evidence in chief, and he's being taken through by his own lawyers how he responds to the case laid out by the government.

He will then be tended for cross-examination by the prosecution.

The panel of three national security law judges will then retire for a period of time to consider their verdict.

And then I'm afraid it's extremely likely that he'll be convicted, not because of the strength of the case against him, but because this has been going in one direction from the start.

Once convicted, there will then be another delay whilst they consider sentence.

>> Is there coordination and communication between the Hong Kong legal team and the international legal team?

>> So, no.

Very simply put, we don't -- It's -- Hong Kong is such that, at the moment, I don't know if, by doing that, I could put, you know, people in trouble.

>> According to reports, diplomats from Australia, Britain, the European Union, and the United States attended the hearing this week.

Ultimately, isn't it the case, then, that Jimmy Lai's release will be secured based on a successful political strategy rather than a successful legal strategy?

>> We may -- We may not know what the underlying reason is, but what is clear is that the -- And empirically clear is that proceedings under the national security law invariably lead to convictions.

I think it used to be said that there was a 100% conviction rate, but of the 47 that were recently prosecuted, two were acquitted, so we're down to about 98%.

I'm not going to do the maths.

But once you're prosecuted, the chances of you being acquitted are minute.

So, what is this?

If he's going to be released, is it unlikely to be achieved through successful defense?

>> It will be a political solution, then.

>> Yeah, I think, in the end, Hong Kong is trying to tell the rest of the world that they still have all these freedoms, right, that they are a financial center.

Because in a financial center, trust is your currency.

You have to trust that you are safe from all these persecutions, that your contract will be honored, that the transaction will go through and whatnot.

And for Hong Kong, it's very important that they have these freedoms.

That's why Hong Kong managed to flourish.

And in the situation they have now, they have 1,900 political prisoners, including my father, in jail, and that is a very clear example of how all these freedoms have been entirely destroyed.

>> Of course, your father is a British citizen.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has said that securing Jimmy's release is a priority for the government.

You have met with the foreign secretary, Sebastian.

The prime minister raised concerns about Jimmy's treatment in a meeting with Xi Jinping this week.

What more should the British government be doing?

>> So, it's...

It's actually pretty simple.

The British government wants to normalize relationship with Hong Kong and China.

I don't believe there's any normalization of relationship if China and Hong Kong can't even spend two hours to put that person on the plane and send them back to the U.K. or the U.S. >> Over 100 politicians from 24 countries signed a letter condemning China for the prosecution of your father just this week.

Hong Kong's leaders have bristled at foreign interference in the case in the past.

Do you have any reason or hope that international pressure will change the calculus?

>> Well, I mean, if they care about their reputation, if they care about normalizing relations with the rest of the world, then it really should.

What Sebastian is saying is right.

I mean, apart from anything else, the treatment of one 77-year-old British man in this dishonorable way needs to be front and center of any relationship between the U.K. and Hong Kong and China.

But equally, any nation on Earth doing business in a territory of 7 million people which holds 1,900 political prisoners -- and I should say that that number five years ago was in the low tens.

So from a standing start of virtually no political prisoners five years ago, they now have more than Belarus, more than Russia.

It is an extraordinary position, and one wouldn't walk into Russia and do business without that front of mind.

And I think they need to think very hard about how they're going to be treated by the rest of the world if they continue to go down this road.

>> Sebastian, your father is a devout Catholic.

You are also Catholic.

The Vatican has been conspicuously absent from the list of foreign voices that have criticized his detention.

While there have been 10 Catholic leaders who have signed as a petition in support of your father, including Cardinal Dolan, the Archbishop of New York, Pope Francis has refrained from weighing in.

Why do you think the Vatican has been silent?

>> I don't pertain to know the politics of the Vatican.

I think as Catholics around the world, in the end, they were not accountable to the Vatican.

We're accountable to God.

So, whether -- I mean, I do wish the Vatican called for his release, as well, and helped secure it, but in the end of the day, it doesn't change the strength of my father's faith and his clarity in what is right.

>> Could the Vatican play a constructive role and hit your father's release?

>> Definitely.

Yeah, I mean, it's -- >> How so?

>> Well, this is a case about saving his life, and even something like him not getting the Eucharist, for example, which is this entirely just petty but very, you know, hurtful thing for a man who is in solitary confinement and has been for the last four years.

>> Aim to break one's spirit.

>> Aim to break his spirit.

Even something like this, just for the Catholic Church to say, "Well, look, this is not acceptable.

If you guys can't administratively organize someone, we'll send someone ourselves.

We'll send a priest there.

We'll give him --" >> So, at the minimum, you ask the Vatican to at least weigh in on allowing him to have the sacrament.

>> Yeah, yeah.

Men get the sacrament even in war zones.

I hardly think that sending someone to Stanley Maximum Security Prison with a sacrament and then going and saying, "We want to give it to this man, to this good Catholic," is asking too much.

>> Sebastian, your father admired and was a friend of Milton and Rose Friedman.

And he even brought them to China.

Last year, he accepted the Cato Institute's Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty.

Friedman appeared on the original "Firing Line" with William F. Buckley Jr.

Here is a clip from one of those interviews in 1968.

Take a look.

>> See, the thing that fascinates me is that, as I talk with the people who regard themselves as welfare staters or liberals, I don't find the difference between them and myself to be very much in our objectives.

We both want to achieve the same ends.

The difference is in what means we think are appropriate to those objectives.

Both they and I want to help the people who are relatively poor insofar as we can.

We would like to have a world in which everybody has an opportunity to develop his own capacities.

>> That last line, "We would like a world in which everybody has the ability to develop in their own capacities."

Sebastian, what will it take for that kind of freedom that your father and that Milton Friedman advocated for to be possible in Hong Kong again?

>> I think at the very start, at the very least, it is to release the political prisoners.

I mean, you can't have a financial center that's afraid of some criticism.

You can't have a thriving place without letting people pursue these very basic human rights.

>> U.S. President-elect Donald Trump has committed to getting your father released.

Before the election, Trump told conservative legal commentator Hugh Hewitt, "100%.

I'll get him out.

It will be easy to get him out."

His nominee for Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, has also called Jimmy's trial a "sham."

Sebastian, do you have confidence that President Trump will prioritize your father's release?

>> The short answer is yes.

I mean, it's -- Look, from my understanding, he's a man of his word.

And in the end, this is about saving my father's life.

And we've been -- just personally, we've been tremendously grateful by the wide-ranging bipartisan support on my father's case.

Because in a case like my father's, in a case where someone stands and gives everything he has for the freedoms that underpin this great nation, but also the United Kingdom and the rest of the free world, we could either view him as a burden, you know?

Oh, something that we have to get over the line in order to then talk to China, as well.

Or we could see that for what it is.

It's a source of pride.

I mean, isn't that the best possible scenario that one can hope for, that someone fights until he is even willing to give up his own freedom?

And I think, at the heart of it, that's what it is.

That's why we've been getting so much support in the United States, because people in the United States are proud of my father, and that's very moving for me.

>> You have received bipartisan support, the international legal team must be preparing to work with the new administration.

Jonathan, how so?

>> We have consistently received bipartisan support, so there won't be -- it's not a sea change.

>> Yeah.

>> We'll continue to receive that.

>> But the case, unfortunately, is much more urgent now because of my father's failing health.

So, again, incredibly grateful that President Trump has said that 100% he will get him out.

>> I want to ask you to respond to something that your father said in October of 2019 in an interview at the Hoover Institution, which was also the home, the intellectual home of Milton Friedman for many, many years.

Take a look at this.

>> My simple message tonight is that bad behavior must be confronted, not appeased, and that you in the West need to have confidence in the superiority of your own system.

China is never embarrassed to assert its own values.

America needs to have the same confidence in its values and its own moral authority.

>> America needs to have the same confidence in its values and its own moral authority.

Your response.

>> I think there's a lot of -- there's obviously a lot of differing -- there's a lot of different opinions in America, and sometimes it does seem like the Americans are at each other's necks.

But the only thing we agree on, the only thing all of us agree on in democratic countries is the rights that we should have and, therefore, other people should have.

And these rights aren't free.

I mean, these rights were fought for by brave men and great men died for these rights.

And the authoritarian regimes know that.

That's why a lot of these -- these people who come from authoritarian regimes have American passports, have British passports, yet they freely oppress their own people.

So in standing up for my father and seeing a man like my father release, it's another reminder for all of us that these rights need to be protected and these rights need to be defended.

>> Sebastian Lai, Jonathan Price, thank you for joining me on "Firing Line."

>> Thank you very much for having us and for shining a light on my father's case.

>> Thank you.

>> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible in part by Robert Granieri, Vanessa and Henry Cornell, the Fairweather Foundation, and by the following.

Corporate funding is provided by Stevens, Inc. ♪♪ >> You're watching PBS.

(guitar strum)