Jimmy Lai, founder of Next Digital, is charged with “conspiring to collude with foreign forces” among other charges. His trial resumed for its 105th day on Monday at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts (acting as the High Court), where Lai made his 13th appearance to testify. Lai stated that after the National Security Law came into effect, his assistant Mark Simon hesitated over whether Lai should continue giving interviews. He confirmed that at the time, he had read legal analyses from scholar Zhang Daming and statements from the Bar Association, and had messaged Simon suggesting he could continue to accept “good interviews.” He added in court that he knew he had to be careful about what he said under the new law but believed he could still participate in worthwhile interviews.

He also confirmed that on July 2, 2020, he had sent an article from Apple Daily to his apprentice Simon Lee, which highlighted police brutality, including the use of water cannons causing a reporter’s nose to bleed and the arrest of 10 individuals displaying flags and slogans advocating for “independence.” Lai confirmed that by then, Lee had resigned, but since no replacement had been found to manage his Twitter account, he had asked Lee to continue assisting. He emphasized that the content of the Twitter posts merely reflected the situation in Hong Kong at that time.

The case is being heard by Judges Esther Toh Lye-ping, Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios, and Alex Lee Wan-tang under the National Security Law. The prosecution is represented by Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Anthony Chau Tin-hang, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Ivan Cheung Cheuk-kan, and Senior Counsel Crystal Chan Wing-sum; Lai is represented by Senior Counsel Robert Pang Yiu-hung, Barrister Steven Kwan, and Marc Corlett, a New Zealand barrister qualified to practice in Hong Kong.

16:15 Court adjourns 

15:54 Lai denies urging others to break the law through his writing

The defense highlighted a message Lai sent to former Democratic Party chairman Albert Ho three days after the publication of an article, stating, “The YouTuber couple and Brother Lion Head already knew each other, it wasn’t me who connected them. The male YouTuber initiated the dinner with Brother Lion Head and then informed me. The YouTuber couple went to Brother Lion Head’s house for dinner on their own. That night, I was recording a radio program and arrived about two hours late, after they had finished eating. Another media friend of mine and the YouTuber, who both know Brother Lion Head, arrived even later, meeting him for the first time. Also present were a couple from Vancouver who are friends of Brother Lion Head, completely outsiders. I was translating Cantonese for my wife, so I remember what was said. How could there be any intimidation with so many people there? Who spread such talk? How could Jimmy Lai have such a ridiculous understanding? And why would Jimmy Lai make such serious accusations against Brother Lion Head — these are not accusations to be made lightly.”

Lai explained in court that the message was written by John Chan Koon-chung, and he had forwarded it to Albert Ho, though he did not remember why he sent the message at the time. The defense noted that Ho did not respond in the end. Lai added that it was possible that Ho was present when Lau told him about being intimidated, but he was not sure, only vaguely remembering that Ho was there when someone passed the message to Lai.

Lai mentioned he forgot under what circumstances Lau informed him about the intimidation, possibly when Ho was also present. Lai stated that he has known Chan, a writer on modern China, for many years. The defense asked if Lai had contacted Chan after receiving the message. Lai said he did not have Chan’s contact details and had not passed the message to Simon Lau Sai Leung. Since Lau informed him of the matter, Lai saw no reason to send him the message, while Albert Ho was acquainted with Jonathan Sumption.

Regarding Lai’s article that stated, “Yes, the clauses of the evil National Security Law are worse than our worst expectations, more people will leave, and even those who stay will avoid joining the resistance, shrinking the group of protesters. But no matter how few remain to fight, we will stand tall, becoming the solid, unyielding pillars of the resistance and the backbone of societal conscience,” the defense asked what Lai meant by “resistance.” Lai said it meant continuing the movement. The defense earlier stated that Lai had said “resistance” meant resisting the erosion of freedoms in Hong Kong. Lai confirmed this was consistent with the article, but the resistance had to be conducted in different ways, not explicitly stated because it was commonly understood to refer to resistance under the NSL. Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked what movement Lai was referring to. Lai said it was a movement for freedom, which he later realized had become impossible.

Lai’s article also stated, “Facing the lawlessness of the CCP, you never know when ‘crossing the line’ means you are breaking the law, all depending on their current needs and whims; there’s no way to be cautious, you just have to face it bravely.” The defense asked, but Lai had previously said he became more cautious under the NSL, isn’t there a contradiction? Lai said no, in the article he mentioned being cautious about arrests, among other things, while others also advised Lai to be cautious. Lai described it as a general statement, because with no clear lines under the NSL, how can one be cautious? (how can be careful)

The defense then asked how Lai personally was cautious to avoid breaking the law. Lai said he was more careful in his actions and work to avoid legal violations. Regarding the article’s mention of “No matter how cautious you are, you cannot escape the violent intimidation, but the courage supported by conviction makes you stand tall,” the defense asked if this reflected Lai’s thoughts. Lai confirmed it.

Finally, the defense asked if Lai intended through his article to make the public hate the central government and the Hong Kong government; intend to change Hong Kong’s political system through unlawful means; incite violence. Lai categorically denied all these. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked again if Lai intended through his article to ask others to break the law. Lai also denied this.

15:15 An article described “Brother Lion Head” as working for the CCP. Lai states in court that it referred to John Shum.

The defense showed an article from Lai’s column “Success or Failure with a Laugh” published on July 5, 2020, titled “Fly, the Backbone of Conscience Supports You.”

The defense quoted from the article, “People with intentions say, ‘Hurry and leave. Colluding with foreign powers is treason, and you could be shot for it!’ I say, ‘I won’t leave. I’ll face what comes, how else can I be a person? I decided long ago not to let fear deter me. Otherwise, every word I speak, every action I take, I would have to worry about the consequences. What can I say, what can I do, how can I hold my head high? Two weeks ago, through my good friend Perry Link, Wang Dan informed me that once the National Security Law passed, the CCP would immediately arrest me and Joshua Wong and take us to the mainland for trial.”

The defense noted the mention in the article of “collusion with foreign powers as treason, possibly punishable by execution.” Lai said he heard this on the “Magic Lamp” YouTube channel, which urged him to leave Hong Kong. The defense asked if this view differed from Lai’s understanding of collusion with foreign powers. Lai said he was unaware of the death penalty aspect. Regarding the quote, “I say, I won’t leave. I’ll face what comes, how else can I be a person? I decided long ago not to let fear deter me,” the defense asked if Lai intended to break the law? Lai denied this, saying his plan was to stay in Hong Kong and face the consequences. About “the CCP would immediately arrest me and Joshua Wong,” the defense asked if Lai believed he would be arrested. Lai clarified he did not believe this, it was just what Wang Dan told him through Perry Link.

The defense referenced paragraph 5 of the article, accused by the prosecution of inciting subversion, which mentioned, “Of course, it’s not just me who’s intimidated, many fellow travelers have recently been threatened in their actions, like being followed, and verbally threatened. For example, a YouTuber friend of mine and his wife were recently introduced by John Chan Koon-chung to a certain Brother. This Brother Lion Head, who once pretended to be a democrat, has actually always been working for the CCP. With the introduction of the NSL, he has become a CCP enforcer, shutting doors and intimidating my friends and their wives for seven hours, eventually targeting my friend’s wife, thinking she was the weaker one, saying he would have triads attack them, asking her if she wanted to be run over by a car or stabbed in the chest three times.” In court, Lai stated that the “YouTuber friend and his wife” were Simon Simon Lau Sai Leung and his wife, John Chan Koon-chung is a well-known writer based in Beijing, and “Brother Lion Head” referred to John Shum.

The defense asked how Lai knew John Chan Koon-chung introduced the Lau couple to Shum. Lai said Lau informed him, and his description of Shum as once pretending to be a democrat but actually always working for the CCP, and becoming a CCP enforcer upon the enactment of the NSL, was Lai’s speculation and accusation, based on Shum’s actions. Regarding the intimidation described in the article, Lai stated Lau also told him about the threats for the Lau couple to leave Hong Kong, believing Shum’s actions could only be representing the CCP. Lai also believed Lau shared this view. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked about the article’s mention of “Of course, it’s not just me who’s intimidated,” to which Lai explained he felt threatened by the NSL at the time.

15:00, Lai expresses his desire to invite Allan Au to write for the opinion section because he is a good writer

The defense displayed a conversation between Lai and Yeung Ching-kee, in which Lai sent Yeung an article titled “Destruction is Implementation, Panic is Prosperity,” commenting, “Lee Ping, Allan Au’s articles are good, please consider inviting him to write for the opinion section. Thanks. Lai.” Yeung replied, “Okay. I will contact him.”

Lai stated that Allan Au is a columnist who writes for various media outlets. The defense asked if Au was already writing for Apple Daily at that time. Lai mentioned that Au was writing for the Apple Daily’s feature section “Ming Choi,” not the opinion section, hence his request for Yeung to invite Au to write for the opinion section.

Regarding Yeung’s statement that after reading Au’s articles, Lai wanted to invite him to write because of “two characteristics,” “one is his fluent writing, and the second is his critical attitude towards the National Security Law,” Lai agreed with the first point about fluent writing, which he also mentioned in his message praising Au’s good articles.

The defense asked if the content of the article was the reason Lai instructed Yeung Ching-kee to invite Allan Au to write. Lai agreed, citing that Au writes good articles related to the National Security Law, effectively explaining it.

14:45, Lai expresses disbelief that freedom of speech is protected under the National Security Law.

The defense displayed a message from Lai to Simon Lee from the 4th of the same month, in which Lai sent an Apple Daily report titled “Iron Fist in Wukan: Zheng Yanxiong Heads National Security Agency” to Lee, commenting, “Now wearing a T-shirt with the slogan ‘Free HK’ or ‘HK independence’ will result in charges of subversion. The CCP still claims that freedom of speech is protected. That’s the CCP’s version of truth, so you understand.”

Lai said that he had not yet found someone to replace Lee, who was already in the United States, so Lee continued to work for Lai. The defense asked why Lai said “wearing a T-shirt with ‘Free HK’ or ‘HK independence’ slogans will result in charges of subversion”? Lai indicated that he learned this from the Apple Daily report.

The defense asked if Lai meant that freedom of speech is protected under the National Security Law when he mentioned “freedom of speech is protected”? Lai agreed and recalled that the National Security Law’s articles mentioned the protection of free speech. The defense pointed out, but Lai does not believe it? Lai agreed.

12:56 Lunch

12:30 Lai confirms that he had discussed with his wife whether to accept interviews.

The defense displayed a WhatsApp conversation between Lai and Albert Ho on July 4, 2020, where Lai told Ho, “Brother Ho, I told you I temporarily won’t accept interviews, but after discussing with my wife, I’ve decided to accept them again. If my wife isn’t afraid, then I don’t need to be too cautious.”

The defense asked if Lai had indeed discussed this with his wife. Lai agreed. The defense then asked what Lai was thinking at the time. Lai said that he had to be very careful. The defense further inquired whether Lai maintained the same mindset from the time he was detained until Apple Daily ceased operations. Lai agreed, adding, “I didn’t have the opportunity to say anything while I was detained.”

The defense then asked about Lai’s message, “Simon, I didn’t get a chance to talk with Sai Leung yesterday. I’ve decided to explain the following in Lee Bafong’s column, please see if any changes are needed,” inquiring what “Lee Bafong” referred to. Lai explained that it was a gossip column.

The defense asked who managed Lai’s Twitter account from the enforcement of the National Security Law until December 2020 when Lai had to close his account due to bail conditions. Lai stated it was managed by Simon Lee, as he had been unable to find anyone else during that time. The defense noted that Simon Lee had stopped writing for Apple Daily’s column but continued to manage Lai’s Twitter account. Lai agreed.

Regarding a conversation between Lai and Ryan Law, which showed Lai mentioning “Fat Lai is in big trouble” in the “Lee Bafong” column, the defense asked what Lai meant by “big trouble.” Lai clarified, “‘Big trouble’ means you know nobody can do it. If I couldn’t find anybody to do it for me, I’m helpless.” He added that under the National Security Law, nobody was managing his Twitter account for him.

12:16 Lai states that no Apple executives had mentioned “playing close to the edge.”

Regarding the recording time of the “People’s School” video, the defense presented a conversation between Lai and Simon Lee on July 3, 2020. Lai wrote: “Simon, I didn’t have a chance to discuss this with Sai Leung yesterday. I’ve decided to explain the following in Lee Bafong’s column. Please see if any changes are needed. Seeing that Simon Lee has stopped writing, I feel bad asking him to continue managing my Twitter. Even though I provided the text, I don’t want to cause him unnecessary trouble.”

The defense asked what Lai meant by “conversation with Sai Leung.” Lai said he did not remember and found the message strange and unclear. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked twice if the “conversation with Sai Leung” in the message referred to the video shown in court. Lai replied that this was exactly why he was confused. Hearing this, Judge Lee said, “Alright, I give up (asking further)!”

The defense then showed a conversation between Lai and his secretary, Julie, from July 2, 2020, in which Julie informed Lai about the filming location and changing area. Lai confirmed that the “People’s School” video was recorded on the same day.

Regarding Simon Lau’s mention of “playing close to the edge” in the clip, Lai said he did not notice it at the time. When the defense asked if any Apple executives used the term “playing close to the edge” back then, Lai said no, apart from hearing Yeung Ching-kee’s mention of it in court. Earlier, Yeung testified that after the National Security Law came into effect in 2020, as an editor, he believed they had to “play close to the edge” to maintain their original stance without touching the law.

Lau also mentioned in the video that one would have to “change one’s nature to accommodate the CCP’s set of red lines, this cage.” The defense asked if Lai had spoken to Apple executives about a “cage.” Lai said he had not.

As for Lai’s comment in the video, “Alright, so now the cost is higher because I cannot be very direct, I can’t just do something straightforward. I have to think of another way, go around in circles, or do something under the table, or use a feigned approach while actually doing something else to achieve the real thing. Whenever you can’t do something directly and simply, the cost goes up,” the defense asked what Lai meant by “can’t be very direct.” Lai explained it meant to conceal what one was doing.

The defense further asked if Lai was concealing what he was doing at the time. Lai said no, stating he was talking about people in general after the National Security Law took effect—they must change their attitude and pretend about what they were actually doing.

The defense then asked whether Lai, after the National Security Law took effect, had concealed any requests for sanctions, etc. Lai also said no: “I don’t see how you can conceal those kinds of things.”

11:49 Break

11:37 Lai Says He Couldn’t Recall Whether the Program Was Recorded Before Or After The NSL Nor The Content Of The Program With Simon Lau

After the video was played, the defense asked when it was filmed, to which Lai replied that he did not remember. The defense pointed out that Lai mentioned an event that had already occurred, suggesting the video was filmed after specific events related to the National Security Law.

Judge Alex Lee asked if the video was shot before or after July 1; Lai repeated that he did not remember. When pressed if he could not specify the timing of the filming, Lai questioned the relevance since the video was aired afterward. The defense added that the video was broadcast on July 6, and Lai reiterated his uncertainty about the filming date.

The defense highlighted Lai’s comment in the video about needing to be aware of the legality of his actions at the time of filming. Lai agreed, suggesting the video might have been filmed after the law came into effect. Judge Alex Lee queried Lai about his mention of life after the law, to which Lai clarified that he prefaced his remarks with “for instance,” suggesting a hypothetical context if it were after the law’s enactment.

Further, the defense discussed Lai’s expressed fears about making mistakes in communications, even in casual conversations, which could lead to legal troubles under the new law. Lai confirmed that under the new legal circumstances, he feared being reported for discussing security-related issues.

Finally, addressing whether the video was filmed before or after the National Security Law took effect, Lai clarified that his comments about always having to think about legality suggested it was shot before the law was enacted, whereas his discussions about reading the law’s text were based on his actions before the law was in effect.

The defense argued that the entire segment was recorded in one session, not in separate parts as might be implied. Lai mentioned that he was referring to the impending law without specifying an exact date. Judge Alex Lee concluded that enough time had been spent on this topic and Lai could not provide further clarity, prompting the defense to request a break.

10:55 Court Plays Lai and Simon Lau’s program

The defense asked, “Who is Simon Lau?” Lai explained that Lau has his own programs and platform, isn’t affiliated with any political party, and had worked in the government, though he wasn’t sure which department. Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios inquired if Lau worked for Apple Daily, which Lai denied. The defense asked about “Channel Next,” and Lai mentioned it was part of “Next Media Online.” Judge Esther Toh asked if it was related to Apple Daily, and Lai initially agreed but then corrected that it was related to “Next Magazine.”

During the program, Lai mentioned:

“After the National Security Law came into effect, suddenly what was second nature to me, like not having to think about what’s legal or illegal, that changed. What about the future? Now, I have to think about whether anything I do is legal.”

“Secondly, how I speak now. I could blabber freely before. Even in blabber, there was order… When I’m on social media, when I communicate with friends, even sending them a photo, sharing a photo, what I say, the way I respond to their questions can create problems. Now, even a casual conversation with a friend makes me anxious they might report me.”

“These kinds of small details gradually make you unable to adapt to your daily life. It’s not that I don’t want to adapt, because previously… (Lau: You were free) that culture, those behaviors, I had a natural routine that made my life convenient.”

“Because I didn’t have to think, I knew what to do… But not anymore. Now, I can’t just act on instinct, my intuition. I have to think.”

“Even if you’re not a criminal, even if you’re a law-abiding person, even if you have nothing to do with politics. Just because you are now facing an environment you are not accustomed to. And in every action, every behavior, you have to be aware if you’re breaking the law, if someone might hear you? Did I say something wrong? This change in behavior drastically alters the quality of your life.”

(Lau: People who leave are counted in hundreds of thousands, what about those who can’t leave, do they just become submissive, change their nature, and adjust to the CCP’s red lines, this cage?) “So, this isn’t just a problem with the law being gone, but… (Lau: belief) the belief, the inner culture of Hongkongers is gone, then Hong Kong is gone.”

(Lau: The National Security Law is coming, we can’t change that, but how can we change what we can… how do we retain our beliefs?) “Can’t keep them, can’t preserve them. How can that be done? How?”

“Hong Kong, because of that fear, because of the changes the National Security Law brought to our behaviors, in a situation we cannot adapt to, we’ve already lost our original home, Hongkongers have only one option left: emigration (Lau: But indeed, many can’t leave) No, no, it’s not about not being able to leave, you can go to Taiwan, you can go there.”

“As for Hong Kong, I feel the death knell has already been rung. It’s not just about us, it’s not just whether we can adapt to the National Security Law, but the environment it creates, our internal culture is something we can no longer adapt to, no matter how hard I try.”

“What we talked about earlier, now the provisions of this National Security Law are so vague, everyone is scared… you have a sword hanging over your head… After it happens, not everyone can overcome it, even when you speak you can’t speak like before… like if you ask me to go abroad, do I have the courage to meet the Vice President of the US, enough courage to meet Pompeo? I have to think about it, seriously, right? If they actually do it, if they send me back to mainland China, it’s like going from a prison in Hong Kong to hell in mainland China.”

10:42 Break 

The court session took a short break while the defense prepared to play a program hosted by Lai and Simon Lau titled “Channel Next People’s School: Is Emigration Really the Last Straw for Hongkongers?”

10:25 Following Simon Lee’s resignation, Lai Couldn’t Find His Replacement

The defense showed a WhatsApp conversation from July 2, 2020, between Lai and his “apprentice” Simon Lee, where Lai sent headlines from Apple Daily regarding police abuse, “important to show the effect of National Security police arrested 10 people show flags and slogans institute “independence ””

According to Lai, Simon Lee had resigned the day before, yet Lai continued to send him material for Twitter posts because no replacement had been found, so Lee continued the task. Asked why he sent this particular front page to Lee, Lai replied it was normal operation and he did not consider the act illegal.

Asked why he chose this front page for a Twitter post, Lai said it reflected the current situation in Hong Kong. Asked if he had found someone to replace Lee, Lai mentioned that was Mark Simon’s responsibility.

The defense also showed a conversation from the same day between Lai and Chan Pui-man on Signal, where Lai wrote, “So you’re on signal. We can Signal if you like from now on. Cheer, Jimmy.” 

The defense mentioned that Chan had previously stated Lai suggested using Signal for future communications, leading her to switch to Signal, but she later returned to WhatsApp as there was no special need for Signal. Lai confirmed that Chan’s statement matched his memory, and he did not recall when Chan switched back to WhatsApp, believing she only used it for a short period.

10:07 Lai Says After NSL Implementation, He Must Be Careful with Words, But Believed Interviews Could Continue

Earlier, the defense asked Lai about a July 1, 2020 WhatsApp conversation with Martin Lee. Martin sent Lai a link related to legal scholar Eric Cheung. Lai asked, “Martin, is the lawsuit against Ta Kung Pao being proceeded? So I’ve no need the lawyer?” Lai said in court he didn’t recall the link’s content.

On Monday, the defense showed a Facebook post by legal scholar Eric Cheung. Lai confirmed he had seen it at the time. The excerpt reads (summarized):

It’s worse than what I imagined. The legal text of the Hong Kong National Security Law is worse than the worst scenario I had imagined. Below I attempt to summarize a few key points:

A. The text is full of characteristics of the domestic socialist legal system, drastically different from the spirit and legal language of Hong Kong’s common law.

B. It applies a Chinese-characteristic concept of rule of law to Hong Kong. While the law emphasizes that state institutions and personnel must obey the law and protect human rights (Article 50), in reality, they are not subject to the jurisdiction or effective supervision of the Special Administrative Region’s independent courts (Article 60). For instance, national security personnel stationed in Hong Kong can intercept communications without being subject to the Interception of Communications and Surveillance Ordinance. This differs from Hong Kong’s longstanding rule of law spirit, which mandates that public authorities are regulated by independent courts.

C. It surpasses the concept that extraterritorial jurisdiction applies only to Chinese citizens, as any person (including non-permanent residents of Hong Kong) who violates the NSL outside Hong Kong is also committing an offense. If such a person steps into Hong Kong territory, they can be extradited and prosecuted (Articles 36-38).

(Friendly reminder: All 8 billion people worldwide should familiarize themselves with the Hong Kong National Security Law to avoid falling into legal traps and subsequent regret.)

Individual Article Analysis:

Chapter One: General Provisions

Article 1. The law does not redefine national security, meaning the definition of national security will adopt the one from the 2015 National Security Law of the People’s Republic of China, which covers a comprehensive range including traditional territorial security, military security, as well as non-traditional political, cultural, and technological security.

Article 4. Proposes that maintaining national security should respect and safeguard human rights, but since the interpretation of the NSL rests with the NPC Standing Committee and not the Hong Kong courts, whether it violates human rights will be reviewed and decided by the NPC Standing Committee.

Chapter Two: Responsibilities

Article 10. Requires the SAR government to carry out national security education through schools, media, etc. It’s uncertain whether future generations of students will need to understand why Nobel laureate Lau Xiaobo, human rights lawyer Yu Wensheng, Qin Yongmin, Wang Quanzhang, and others’ actions were considered subversive to state power and a threat to national security.

Chapter Three: Crimes and Punishments

Section One: Secession of State

Article 20. Whether by force or the threat of force, any act considered as aiming to secede from the state or to undermine national unity is an offense. International human rights standards generally require that actions must include the use of force or the threat of force to constitute secession to protect the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.

Section Two: Subversion of State Power

Article 22. Acts of subversion of state power include the use of any unlawful means, which can be very broadly defined, such as organizing unauthorized assemblies, which, if deemed to seriously interfere with or obstruct the lawful functions of the SAR government, may also violate the NSL.

Section Three: Terrorist Activities

Article 24. The definition of terrorist activities is very broad, including organizing different illegal actions to achieve political demands, such as sabotaging transportation vehicles or hacking government networks.

Section Four: Collusion with Foreign or External Forces to Endanger National Security

Article 29. Providing “secrets or information involving national security” to foreign organizations constitutes an offense, and considering cases like Ching Cheong and the Ming Pao reporter Xi Yang, the state’s definition of national secrets is very broad.

The day after, Lai sent his assistant Mark Simon the English version of the statement on the National Security Law by the Hong Kong Bar Association. When asked by the defense if he had considered his action illegal when sending the statement, prosecutor Anthony Chau interrupted, saying the question was leading. Lai answered that he did not think his action was illegal when he read the statement.

Lai messaged Mark Simon, “Mark, I think I should continue to accept interviews, at least the good ones. Thanks. Jimmy.” The defense asked why Lai suddenly proposed to continue giving interviews. Lai explained that the media would contact him for interviews through Mark Simon, “So maybe there was a moment of hesitation whether I should continue, and then we affirm that I should.”

The defense asked who was hesitant about continuing the interviews. Lai said it was Mark Simon. When asked how Mark Simon showed his hesitation, Lai explained, “If he was in Hong Kong, he would just come to my office.” The defense noted that Mark Simon had already left Hong Kong, so the hesitation was probably expressed over WhatsApp.

The defense asked if Lai had hesitated to continue the interviews. Lai said he did not remember, but “I definitely knew that I had to be a lot more careful in what I said” to avoid violating the new law.

The defense asked if all interviews were arranged by Mark Simon. Lai agreed, noting exceptions like CNN and the Financial Times, where most Hong Kong media would contact him directly, except for Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK), which did not interview him.

10:02 Court Session Begins

The Witness