On the 111th day of Jimmy Lai’s trial, which took place Tuesday at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts (acting as the High Court), Lai testified for the 19th day.

During the proceedings, the court was shown footage from an August 18, 2020, live interview aired shortly after Lai’s initial arrest and release. On the program, Lai said, “I was not intimidated or insulted by the handcuffs… I wore the handcuffs just to show the regime we are dealing with.” Lai denied in court that his remarks were intended to incite hatred against the Central or Hong Kong governments, claiming he was merely describing the circumstances of his treatment.

In the same interview, Lai said, “If I knew what was happening now, would I continue on the same path, doing the same things? I almost immediately thought that I would. Because it’s my nature.” When asked by the defense what he meant by “doing the same things,” Lai explained that it referred to his commitment to activism, a path he chose after the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown.

Lai reiterated that he never intended to incite hatred but only wanted to state the facts, explaining the challenges the world faces, and the need to make China’s values “assimilate” into universal values to avoid future conflicts and achieve long-term peace. The defense asked why Lai described China as “dictatorial.” Lai stated it is because China is indeed dictatorial.

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

10:03 Court in Session

10:10 “I was not intimidated or insult by the handcuffs”

The defense played footage of an August 18, 2020 “Livechat” interview with Jimmy Lai, who was joined by then-Next Media independent non-executive director Mark Clifford and Perry Link. In the transcript shown in court, Lai said, “I was not intimidated or insulted by the handcuffs… I wore the handcuffs just to show the regime we are dealing with.”

The defense asked if Lai intended to incite hatred against the central and Hong Kong governments with these remarks. Lai denied this, asserting that he was merely stating facts and wanted to convey how unimaginable it was to be treated this way.

Lai also mentioned in the interview, “So I asked myself, if I knew what was happening now, would I continue on the same path, doing the same things? I almost immediately thought that I would. Because it’s my nature.”

When asked what “do the same things” meant, Lai explained that it referred to continuing the path he had followed, having become a social activist after the June 4th incident.

The defense further cited Lai’s comments: “That’s why they find Hong Kong as a leverage against China’s value or a conduit to express their value through their support to Hong Kong.” Lai elaborated in court that Hong Kong’s values align with universal values, which contrast with the values of the Chinese regime. Thus, Hong Kong naturally becomes a leverage, as reflected in the social movements at that time.

The defense noted that the prosecution accused Lai’s comments of implying that foreign sanctions were justified. Lai denied this, emphasizing that he was only pointing out the value differences between China and Hong Kong. Judge Esther Toh asked how Hong Kong became leverage. Lai explained that because Hong Kong’s values align with those of the world, and oppose China’s values, Hong Kong naturally becomes leverage. He clarified that this does not mean the international community deliberately uses Hong Kong as leverage, but rather that, upon seeing the value differences between China and Hong Kong, the international community naturally perceives Hong Kong as leverage.

10:20 Asked Why He Describes China as “Dictatorial,” Lai Says: Because China is Dictatorial

The defense referred to Lai’s description in the program, “But China uses its values, those arbitrary values, the dictatorial values, to invade international handling of affairs.” They asked whether Lai’s comments were intended to incite public hatred towards the central government. 

Lai reiterated that he never intended to incite hatred but only wanted to state the facts, explaining the challenges the world faces, and the need to make China’s values “assimilate” into universal values to avoid future conflicts and achieve long-term peace. The defense asked why Lai described China as “dictatorial.” Lai stated it is because China is indeed dictatorial.

The defense also quoted Lai’s further description that the invasion of China’s values is more terrifying than Russia’s military invasion of Ukraine. They asked if Lai intended this comparison to incite hatred against the central government. Lai denied this, clarifying that the Russian military invasion of Ukraine is temporary and solvable. However, as a very large country, China’s value invasion into international affairs represents a long-term issue. If attempts are not made to integrate China’s values into the international sphere, it could become a global phenomenon, whereas Ukraine is a smaller country.

10:30 Judge Questions Lai’s Program Statement on Changing China, Compares It to Asking Muslims to Change Their Religion

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping questioned Lai’s statement in an interview, “This is the biggest question the world has to face now, if we can’t change China, which is so big, it will change us.” Esther Toh Lye-ping asked if Lai meant not just for China to “assimilate” but actually to change China? Lai explained that by changing China, he similarly meant for Chinese values to “assimilate” into global values.

Esther Toh Lye-ping questioned, in a “give and take” scenario, like accepting Muslims into a community, but in this case, are you essentially asking Muslims to adopt your religion? Lai clarified that this was not his statement; he consistently wanted Chinese values to integrate with the world, not that China should completely abandon its values, but integration involves some “give and take.” Esther Toh Lye-ping pressed further, but Lai’s program statement was about changing China, otherwise “it will change us”? Lai explained that it was a spontaneous interview and he couldn’t elaborate in detail at that moment.

The defense also mentioned Lai’s statement in the program, “And this is what the world is facing as the crucial point and that’s why countries like Germany, Australia, and Canada initially did not join America’s policy towards China. It was like America was fighting China alone, whether in trade or otherwise, but once they realize what China is and their inability to leverage against such a big China, they are slowly coming to align with the US.”

The defense raised the issue that the prosecution accuses this of involving a multi-nation alliance participating in America’s policy towards China and sanctioning China. Did Lai intend to express this? Lai said he was just stating facts because many European countries are gradually allying with the US, no one wants to be hostile towards China, no one wants to change China, but they want China’s values to integrate with global values; other Western countries are allying with the US, not facing China alone.

The defense asked about the US policy towards Hong Kong and China. Lai believed that at that time, the US was very keen to confront China, and European countries wanted to join the US’s line. The defense further asked if Lai advocated for multiple countries to ally against China? Lai said no, he did not advocate for anything, emphasizing that he was only stating the facts of what was happening at the time. Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios inquired what Lai meant by “confront”? Lai responded that it meant no longer avoiding the issue but facing it head-on, and there are still no results yet.

10:45 Program Describes Chinese Communist Regime as Authoritarian, Lai Claims Only Stating Facts

The defense continued to quote Lai from the program, where he mentioned, “The sanction of the US against China, that is not doing the greatest damage. The greatest damage of sanction and the indication of insinuation is that there is going to be a hot war, China and the US is going to be in big confrontation, the trade, diplomacy and all that.”

Asked under examination, Lai denied advocating for sanctions against China, pointing out that sanctions are not the greatest harm but rather the implication of a significant confrontation between China and the US, which would be disastrous for businesses fearing such a conflict. The defense further asked if Lai was advocating for a “big confrontation” between China and the US? Lai refuted how he could advocate such, stating he was only analyzing the situation.

The defense further quoted, “People just cannot stand the CCP culture of how they deal with the world and the authoritarian regime of giving respect to rules or laws and that’s what scares people.” Lai added in court that it refers to the international community. The defense asked if Lai was equating “CCP culture” with “Chinese culture”? Lai clarified they are different, and “CCP culture” refers to dictatorship.

The defense noted that Lai described the Chinese regime as an “authoritarian regime” that does not respect rules or laws. Was this intended to incite hatred against the central government? Lai denied this, reiterating that he was merely stating facts. The defense asked how Lai knew that the central government does not respect rules or laws? Lai responded that it’s because they clash with the West; otherwise, they would handle issues more smoothly. The rules refer to the “international rule of conduct,” underpinned by welfare and global trade. When asked who sets these rules, Lai said no one specifically; these rules have evolved over years. The defense further inquired if these rules are documented? Lai responded that these rules reside in the conscience of people globally.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked if these rules were not established by organizations like the WTO? Lai said such organizations might explain them, but that’s not the point. Instead, it’s rooted in Christian origins and the morals and values that originated in Europe due to the Renaissance.

The defense continued from the transcript, “If Xi steps down, China will go back to its opening to the world, culturally, politically, and of course, commercially, the world will welcome it.” Lai in court believed that when China first opened up for business to the world, it was more receptive to global standards, but since President Xi has been criticized, the CCP has tried to refute and rigidly adhere to its own business methods.

The defense mentioned Lai’s later comment in the interview, “A lot of people now still stand up, like myself, Apple Daily, we continue to stand up and go on with our business and keep fighting.” Lai explained in court that it means to bravely stand up and overcome challenges.

11:00 Lai Claims Unaware SWHK Is an Organization, Believes It’s Merely a Support Hong Kong Phrase

The defense presented a tweet from August 20, 2020, posted by Lai on Twitter, where he retweeted an inaccessible tweet stating, “Thank you Mr @RealDonaldTrump, #HK can’t be successful without freedom and it can’t be the international financial center it once was. It is very sad.” Lai believed the tweet was written by Simon Lee and that the inaccessible tweet might have been Trump’s, but he was unsure as he was not the one handling it. When asked what happened that day, Lai said he didn’t know, possibly in response to Trump’s tweet.

The defense noted Lai’s tweet included “http://twitter.com/HKMarkSimon” and asked if Lai knew whether Mark Simon had a Twitter account. Lai said he had not seen Mark Simon on Twitter. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked why the tweet was inaccessible, to which Lai replied, “How would I know?” suggesting that it could be a download error by the police, but Alex Lee Wan-tang said Lai should just answer that he didn’t know and need not speculate.

The defense asked what “very sad” meant in the tweet. Lai explained that if Hong Kong could no longer be an international financial center and was no longer successful, it would indeed be a sad situation.

The defense showed Lai’s tweet from the following day: “President @RealDonaldTrump calls me a brave man. I am flattered. But I am not brave enough to stand against the whole world like #Xi. I only #StandWithHongKong #StandWithTaiwan.”

When asked who wrote this tweet, Lai believed he wrote part of it, while the “hashtag” and “But I am not brave enough to stand against the whole world like Xi” were added by Lee. The defense noted, so Lai was aware of Trump’s appreciation? Lai confirmed, but did not remember if someone informed him or if he watched it himself.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping noted the repeated appearance of “#StandWithHongKong” in the tweet, questioning if Lai wasn’t curious about this hashtag. Lai responded that he only focused on content related to him. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang pointed out this wasn’t the first time this hashtag appeared in his tweets; hadn’t he noticed? Lai agreed.

The defense asked if Lai had heard of SWHK at the time. Lai stated if he had heard of it, it would have been through the newspapers, but he never paid attention to it. Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if it was mentioned in Apple Daily reports. Lai reiterated he did not care about SWHK. The defense asked, so what did Lai understand SWHK to be at the time? Lai indicated it meant supporting Hong Kong together, never considering it an organization.

Esther Toh Lye-ping asked, Lai said he was fighting for Hong Kong, and SWHK stood with Hong Kong, wasn’t he interested in joining them? Lai replied, “Why should I join them? I was not seeking to join anybody,” emphasizing that he did not know SWHK was an organization, only understanding it as a phrase.

11:35 Break

11:20 Article Describes Xi Jinping as ‘Mao Zedong the Second,’ Lai Denies Incitement

The defense displayed an article published by Lai on August 23 in his column “Success and Failure with a Laugh,” mentioning, “The economic damage caused by Western sanctions is certainly very significant and has far-reaching consequences. Imminently, there is a hit to investor confidence. With wolf warrior diplomacy opposing American sanctions…”

The defense pointed out Lai’s reference to Western and American sanctions, asking if Lai was calling for sanctions. Lai denied this, explaining that he was merely pointing out what had already happened.

Regarding Lai’s mention that “the threat from the US brings unprecedented risks to Chinese enterprises, causing damages that might be costlier than any sanctions,” the defense asked if he was calling for sanctions. Lai denied this, clarifying that the consequences of sanctions were worse than the sanctions themselves because they prevent people from investing, affecting investors’ businesses. Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked if Lai thought the consequences of sanctions meant people would stop investing. Lai agreed.

As for Lai’s comment that “the substantial and confidence damages caused by confronting the US indicate that great disaster looms for the CCP… the Xi court faces an enlightened world. Over the decades, the Chinese people have engaged in foreign trade, cultural and academic exchanges through travel, gaining knowledge about the world, no longer as ignorant as in Mao’s era. Today you have the right to be the second Chairman Mao, whether you can pull it off will be your greatest test.”

Lai denied that the above passage incited hatred towards the central and Hong Kong governments, incited people to change Hong Kong’s political system through illegal means, or asked others to break the law. Lai stated that he was merely pointing out that Xi Jinping is trying to take China back to the Mao era, like a “Mao Zedong the second,” but whether the people accept this is a significant challenge for Xi Jinping.

12:14 Lai Requests English Version Focus Solely on China News; Claims It’s Resource Management, Not Editorial Direction

During court proceedings, the defense showcased a tweet from August 25 by Lai, retweeting an article by Samuel Chu in The New York Times Chinese edition titled “Why China is pursuing people like me, an American citizen.” When asked about Chu, Lai identified him as “son of Chu Muk,” clarifying that he meant Reverend Chu Yiu-ming, one of the “Occupy Central Trio,” and that Samuel Chu resides in Washington, D.C., USA.

Lai acknowledged that the tweet was retweeted by Simon Lee, not remembering if he had noticed it at the time. He was also unsure if he knew about the article as he was not aware that The New York Times had a Chinese edition.

The defense displayed a conversation from the “English news” group chat, where Lai asked if important news articles had been translated into English, emphasizing the importance of such news. His staff Jeung Mai-hung confirmed translations were prepared. Lai thanked them and requested more news on the difficulties faced by mainland Chinese, citing a severe shortage of English news articles.

When asked why he inquired about the translations, Lai explained that he merely wanted to know if the reports had been translated into English, highlighting the scarcity of English news. His request for news on the difficulties faced by mainland Chinese was driven by reader interest.

In another instance, Lai messaged Lo Fung, asking, “Do we need this kind of news that has nothing to do with China and all major English newspapers have published it? I wondered,”attaching an Apple Daily article titled “Republicans say Biden is good for Iran and ISIS, great for China.”

Fung responded: “I am trying to include a few stories on international news as our readers are from all parts of the world, and they may want to know a bit about major news happening around the globe, especially important news like the US election.”

Lai later messaged: “I don’t think this kind of news is needed since wherever they come their local news media should have covered it. I rather think that we should focus on Chinese news and be known for it without dilution.”

Fung replied: “Ok, will stop running international news from today.”

Lai pointed out in court that due to the scarcity of English news resources, the focus should be on Chinese news, rather than news already covered by other papers, stating, “So I didn’t think we should spend our resources on things like this.”

When asked by the defense what he aimed to achieve with the English version, Lai said he hoped the English version would use the most resources from Apple Daily to report on issues related to China, not shift focus elsewhere. He mentioned that this was precisely why he established the English version of Apple Daily, to break the monopoly of the South China Morning Post.

The defense asked if Fung and his colleagues reported more on China, Lai said they at least tried.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked if Lai had seen the article “Republicans say Biden is good for Iran and ISIS, great for China” that he had sent. Lai said he glanced at it, believed international news was unsuitable for the English version. When Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked how Lai knew it was international news, Lai said it was evident from the title and reiterated that the English version did not need international news.

Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked, but the title relates to China? Lai replied, the mention of China was very superficial; the report mainly concerned Biden’s policies and ISIS. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if Lai determined relevance to China based on the title? Lai agreed. Judge Toh asked again if Lai said the report’s China aspect was superficial? Lai agreed.

Toh asked, so Lai did follow the link and read the article? Lai said he might have seen the subtitle, implying he read the article. Lai clarified he only knew some of the content, reiterating he had not read the full article.

Alex Lee Wan-tang noted, from the responses of Cheung Kim-hung and Fung, that Lai was giving editorial instructions? Lai said, “I don’t think it was an editorial direction; it was a management direction because the English version did not have substantial resources, so I needed them to focus on what they do.”

Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if Lai was giving instructions regarding news types? Lai reaffirmed it was not editorial instruction, but rather resource management.

12:45 Lai Retweeted Pompeo’s Post, Saying Post Involves HSBC Sanctioning Individual Accounts, Denies Advocating Sanctions

The defense noted that on August 27, Lai’s Twitter account retweeted a post by then U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, stating, “The United States is dismayed to learn the Chinese Communist Party continues to bully our British friends and their corporate leaders. HSBC maintains accounts for individuals sanctioned for denying Hong Kongers freedom, while shutting accounts for those seeking freedom.” 

Lai said this was retweeted by Simon Lee. The defense asked if Lai was indirectly calling for sanctions. Lai denied this, stating the content was not about advocating sanctions but about HSBC sanctioning individual accounts.

The defense then showed another tweet from Lai on August 27, “Food import problems reflect that China needs imports to compensate its insufficiency. China cannot afford to decouple its trade with the free world, especially US. But can China reconcile its many conflicts with universal value of freedom and democracy?” along with an Apple Daily English link. Lai said he was not certain whether he or Simon Lee wrote this tweet.

The defense cited Lai’s earlier testimony that universal values were Western values. This tweet specifically mentions democracy and freedom. The defense asked if Lai viewed democracy and freedom as part of these values. Lai confirmed and agreed that besides democracy and freedom, universal values include many other values as well.

12:55 Lunch

14:32 Post Mentioning Lam Cheuk-ting’s Arrest During the 721 Incident Asks “Will Evil Prevail in Hong Kong?” Lai Claims He Did Not Write It

The defense displayed a tweet from Lai dated August 27, 2020, which stated, “Hitler distorted the facts of the Reichstag arson, then evil prevailed. HK police bent the truth about the 7.21 mob attack, and pressed charges against legislators Lam and Hui, who protected citizens from white-shirt mob attackers. Will evil prevail in HK?” along with a link to the Apple Daily English version. Lai said the post was related to the 7.21 Yuen Long white-shirt incident and stated that it was written by Simon Lee. Lai also claimed unfamiliarity with the “Reichstag arson” and remembered that ‘Lam’ referred to Lam Cheuk-ting, but did not recall who ‘Hui’ was.

The defense then showed another tweet from Lai’s account the following day, “Anyone who still has any fantasy the rule of law survived #NSL should be awakened by the massive #IndiscriminateArrest,” with a link to the related Apple Daily English article. Lai affirmed that he did not write this post. The defense showed a news link stating that then-legislator Ted Hui Chi-fung was arrested for obstructing justice, accused of intending to delete data from someone else’s phone. Lai did not recall this.

The defense showed a report from Apple Daily titled “Assaulted and Bloodied by Thugs, Only to Be Accused of Disturbing Peace, Lam Cheuk-ting from Plaintiff to Defendant in Riot,” and asked Lai if he had read this report. Lai did not remember, but was aware of Lam’s arrest.

14:45 Judges Ask If He Implies Under National Security Law the Government Distorts Facts? Lai: At Least the Police Do

The defense cited the same day’s “Live Chat” program, where Lai mentioned, “Yesterday we had a really horrible arrest. Not just that they arrested 16 people who did not violate any law. It was horrible that they rewrote history, the facts of what happened…There’s no rule of law, no facts, no black and white, no right and wrong.”

The defense asked why the arrest of 16 people led Lai to have such views. Lai stated it was because he knew at least Lam and Hui were protecting citizens at the time but were later arrested.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked if Lai knew this because he was present; Lai denied being present but had seen it in the news. Toh further inquired how Lai knew Lam and Hui were protecting citizens. Lai said he knew from the news, reading Apple Daily or other outlets. The defense asked why Lai thought this incident undermined Hong Kong’s rule of law. Lai said because they were protecting citizens but got prosecuted. Judge Lee Yunteng asked if Lai noticed that they were not charged under the National Security Law. Lai did not remember.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios referred to an Apple Daily headline, “Lam Cheuk-ting Plaintiff Turned Defendant in Riot,” and asked Lai if he knew at the time that Lam was arrested for rioting. Lai confirmed but said he didn’t know if it involved the National Security Law. Under the National Security Law’s implementation, Lai thought many aspects had changed, affecting the rule of law overall.

Toh probed further, meaning Lam was not charged under the National Security Law but for rioting, yet the National Security Law influenced his arrest? Lai reiterated he didn’t know if Lam was charged related to the National Security Law but believed the rule of law was generally affected. Toh asked again, how? Lai explained that this was due to the events of the time and believed the government became quite strict in applying laws after the National Security Law was enacted.

Toh questioned if, before the National Security Law, even if someone rioted, they wouldn’t be arrested? Lai emphasized Lam did not riot but was protecting citizens, yet the facts were distorted. Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios further asked, under the National Security Law, does the government distort facts? Lai stated at least the police do distort facts.

15:00 Interview States National Security Law Transforms Hong Kong Police to Resemble China’s

The defense further cited Lai’s remarks during a “Live Chat” where he mentioned his colleagues becoming more cautious. The defense asked if Lai had advised them to be cautious. Lai responded that he always told his colleagues to be careful. The defense then asked if Lai had specifically warned his colleagues about what not to do under the National Security Law. Lai said he did not elaborate, as lawyers would explain during lectures; he merely reminded them to be generally careful.

The defense also noted Lai’s interview comment that “now they have the excuse to impose the National Security Law in Hong Kong and clampdown all the demonstration and take away our right of freedom……in a very short time they can change the Hong Kong police , which was a very high quality police, into the same police like China with the China culture, ignoring facts, changing facts.” Lai explained in court that this was because the facts proved their actions, such as the police arresting Lam Cheuk-ting and others.

The defense asked what had happened after the implementation of the National Security Law that led Lai to express the thoughts he mentioned in the interview. Lai said he did not remember, but the arrests of Lam and Hui were examples of this.

15:15 Program Suggests “Instinctive Resistance” – Lai States It Means Resisting Legally

In the program, Lai said, “So looking at us is no different as they looking at the Muslim in Xinjiang. And they would do the same to us. They are doing to the Xinjiang Muslims. And this is where the danger of Hong Kong, which is going to become much worse than the ordinary city of China. That is the fate we are facing if we don’t keep on fighting and have international community’s voice protecting us” 

The defense asked what Lai meant by “fighting”. Lai explained it as resisting encroachments on freedom. The defense then inquired about Lai’s expectations from the “international community”. Lai expressed a desire for the international community to raise its voice and increase global awareness about Hong Kong. When asked if he wanted the entire international community to speak for Hong Kong, Lai clarified that he didn’t expect the whole world to advocate for Hong Kong, but that a portion would.

The defense queried how he envisioned this advocacy. Lai was unsure, merely expressing a desire for attention and to “reason with China.”

Additionally, Lai commented in the program, “That’s why when our right of freedom, the rule of law is being taken away, we instinctively rebelled and resist. And this is almost like a second nature for us to resist as a Chinese civilization. There’s no rule of law, there’s no human right. There’s no constitutional guarantee.” 

The defense inquired how Lai would describe this resistance. Lai said, “When we see our freedom being taken away, it’s almost as if the oxygen is being sucked out of us, that’s why we rebel and resist.”

The defense asked who, according to Lai, was taking away these freedoms and the rule of law? Lai pointed to the central authorities. The defense also asked why Lai had stated “people overseas are very important” in the program. Lai explained it was because they voiced support for Hong Kong, raising global concern, “If foreign governments speak up for Hong Kong and express their concern to the Chinese authorities, then we have a chance to live freely.”

Regarding Lai’s statement, “They would keep fighting from outside and this is what we need”, the defense asked what he meant by “fighting from outside.” Lai reiterated that it referred to raising awareness among the international community about the CCP and Hong Kong’s situation.

Finally, regarding Lai’s statement, “So we have to persist, be flexible and be persistent. And that’s what we have to do here.”, Lai explained it meant “trying to resist without breaking the law.” When asked what law specifically, Lai referred to the new laws at that time.

15:31 Break

15:52 Denies Advocating U.S. Support for Taiwan – Lai: Closer U.S.-Taiwan Relations Are a Fact

The defense displayed a tweet from Lai on August 29, which was a retweet of an Apple Daily North America account post, suggesting that it was reposted by Simon Lee. Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping inquired if the North American edition of Apple Daily differed from the online version. Lai noted they were roughly the same, handled by people in the U.S., and existed only online, not in print.

On September 1, 2020, Lai tweeted, “LLook at how the police arrested the young boy, and you will see the contrast – on the one hand moral laxity the authoritarian state and on the other hand the brave, determined #HKers. Yes, we may succumb for now but we’ll prevail at the end.” Lai stated this tweet was written by Simon Lee, noting it was his typical style of writing in English.

Regarding a promotional video for Apple in which Lai mentioned “climbing the mountain and going up and down together,” he explained it as everyone doing their utmost to face the situation in Hong Kong flexibly, according to their own ways. When asked about his role, Lai said, “as an individual, I do my best,” aiming for a flexible, legal way of living.

During the “Live Chat With Jimmy Lai” program on September 3, with guests including Mark Clifford and former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan, Raymond Burghardt, Lai commented, “The US has a really much greater support for Taiwan, military support, which stabilizes Taiwan and makes Taiwan’s economy flourish.”

Lai clarified that he was not advocating for U.S. support for Taiwan, but merely stating the fact that U.S. support for Taiwan had increased. When asked if he was advocating for Taiwan-U.S. cooperation, Lai mentioned that it was a fact, noting that under Tsai Ing-wen, Taiwan’s relations with the U.S. were closer compared to the era of Chen Shui-bian. When asked if he advocated for further actions between Taiwan and the U.S., Lai denied it, stating that under Trump’s policy, U.S.-Taiwan relations were already closer.

The defense also asked if Lai advocated for the U.S. to strengthen its military presence in the Asia-Pacific to confront or oppose China. Lai responded negatively, saying, “I am advocating the greater military presence has under Asia pacific, the less risk of conflict with China, less conflict with China, not more”

When asked if he was advocating for a U.S. military presence in the Asia-Pacific as a threat to China, Lai noted that the U.S. had already increased its military presence in the region, emphasizing that this increase was meant to reduce the risk of conflict with China.

16:25 Court Adjourns

The Witness