Jimmy Lai, founder of Next Media, appeared in court Wednesday for the 112th day of hearings in his trial on charges of “conspiring to collude with foreign forces,” among other allegations. The case, held at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts—acting as the High Court—marked Lai’s 20th court appearance.

During the proceedings, the defense played a segment from Lai’s September 3, 2020, program Live Chat With Jimmy Lai. In the clip, Lai discussed the arrest of former legislator Lam Cheuk-ting and others related to the July 21 Yuen Long incident, saying, “This place totally has no rule of law, no black-and-white, no right and wrong.” He added that Hong Kong had become a “police state.”

Lai explained in court that by “police state,” he meant “the police have powers that override the law.” Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked if he meant “the police have powers that surpass the rule of law, which means they can do anything?” Lai responded, “That is your interpretation,” clarifying that he did not hold that view but was instead describing a “police society” where the police can act with broad discretion.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang questioned whether Lai was suggesting the police do not follow the law. Lai replied, “They can choose not to follow the law or to follow it, so I’m not saying it applies to everything.” Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios further asked how the arrests of the two legislators related to Lai’s claim of police disregarding the law. Lai stated, “Because they are defenders, protecting the people, not offenders.”

The trial is being heard by designated National Security Law judges 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’s defense team comprises senior barrister Robert Pang Yiu-hung, barrister Steven Kwan, and New Zealand barrister Marc Corlett, who is qualified to practice in Hong Kong.

Detailed Transcription

10:03 Court in Session

10:05 Once Said Tsai Ing-wen Had More U.S. Support Than Chen Shui-bian; Lai Denies Advocating U.S. Involvement in Taiwan Affairs

Before the proceedings began, Judge Esther Toh noted that due to the High Court judges’ Christmas party in the afternoon, the court would adjourn at 12:30 pm. The defense continued playing the September 3, 2020 “Live Chat With Jimmy Lai” program, featuring guests Mark Clifford and former American Institute in Taiwan chairman Raymond Burghardt.

Lai mentioned on the program, “She (Tsai Ing-wen) also has the advantage that Chan Shui-bian did not have, is the support from the US. When Chan Shui-bian was president, Taiwan was not in the radar, nobody cared about Taiwan, because Taiwan was not really important with the expectation of China becoming richer and more like the US.”

The defense asked why Lai believed Tsai Ing-wen had an advantage. Lai explained that with US support, Taiwan would be safer. As Taiwan became safer, its economy also improved, and investors were more confident in investing. When asked what he meant by safety, Lai said it was about protection from China’s interference. The defense asked if Lai was advocating for American intervention in Taiwan’s affairs. Lai said he was merely stating facts.

In the program, Lai also said, “I’m very pleased to see Taiwan lifting the ban on US beef and pork and all that without making a fuss. They used to make a fuss. Now they realize the US is the international security backbone. With the belligerence of the CCP, they know that their safety depends on the US.”

The defense asked if Lai was advocating that Taiwan secure US support. Lai stated he was just pointing out facts, “I did not ask the U.S. to do anything and nobody can ask the U.S. to do anything, except they are doing what they wanted to do, they have to do.”

The defense asked how recognizing the US as an international security backbone related to Taiwan’s safety. Lai noted that the US presence in the Asia-Pacific region offered Taiwan a form of security because the US aims to protect its allies, including Taiwan. Asked if Lai was advocating a US-Taiwan alliance, Lai denied it, saying the US-Taiwan alliance had existed for many years.

As for Lai’s statement, “But action also very important not just words,” he explained that words are just talk, but support meant the US presence in the Asia-Pacific, providing high-level security for the region, including Taiwan.

10:25 Judge Questions Lai’s Implication That Taiwan’s Chip Technology Is a US Strategic Weapon

Regarding Lai’s statement, “It’s important for Taiwan to position itself with all the other countries while they are still favorable to Taiwan’s position. I think this is very important for Taiwan, to keep the economy going while the tension of the US and China increases,” The defense asked if Lai was advocating for Taiwan to form alliances with other countries. Lai clarified that he was not talking about forming alliances per se, but rather that Taiwan needs to align itself with other countries, not just the US. The defense asked why it was important for Taiwan to maintain economic growth amid escalating US-China tensions. Lai explained that due to the close relationship between Taiwan and the US, Taiwan would ultimately suffer economically as China might stop trading with Taiwan.

The defense asked if the “suffering” Lai referred to was political or economic. Lai specified it was economic. Judge Susana Remedios asked what Lai meant by alliances. Lai explained that alliances referred to political associations, like the US with Asian alliances, but reiterated that his program comment was about economic transactions.

On Lai’s claim, “I think Taiwan is very important now because of its chip manufacturing. The chip manufacturing technology now is actually a strategic weapon of the US government, in a way, leverage against China.”

The defense asked if Lai was advocating using chip technology as a bargaining chip against China. Lai denied this, pointing out that the US was already using chip technology, “How could I advocate something that has already taken place? I was just stating the fact.”

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if by stating it had already occurred, Lai was not advocating but encouraging the situation to continue. Lai reiterated he was merely stating facts. Lee further asked if Lai wanted it to continue. Lai responded that he did not say he wanted it to continue, emphasizing Taiwan’s importance to the US because of its cost-effective manufacturing.

Judge Esther Toh also pointed out that Lai described Taiwan’s chip manufacturing technology as a strategic weapon of the US government, “Aren’t you encouraging it to continue?” Lai responded he was just stating facts. Lee asked, “Aren’t you encouraging Taiwan to enhance this aspect?” Lai denied saying so. Lee then asked if Lai was implying it. Lai denied, simply stating that Taiwan’s manufacturing was cost-effective.

The defense asked if Lai was a resident of Taiwan. Lai agreed. The defense then asked if Lai wished for a conflict between China and Taiwan. Lai responded, “Of course not.”

10:40 Judge Questions Why Lai Called Hong Kong a “Police State”: Lai: “Without Rule of Law, Police Can Override the Law”

Lai stated in the program, “The recent arrest of the two democratic legislators shows that this place is totally has no rule of law, no black-and-white, no right and wrong, just whatever they want to do they can just do it. How can a place like this keep its status as an international financial center and business center? No way you can keep it.”

The defense asked about the “two democratic legislators” Lai mentioned, asking if they were the same legislators mentioned the previous day. Lai said this was not specified here. Judge Esther Toh asked if the “two democratic legislators” Lai mentioned in the program were Lam Cheuk-ting and Ted Hui, mentioned the previous day. Lai said he was not 100% sure.

When Lai stated “this place totally has no rule of law,” the defense asked why he said this. Lai explained that the two were defending citizens but were charged as offenders. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if Lai’s conclusion was based on news reports, and Lai agreed.

The defense inquired if Lai had previously claimed to have dined with Lam? Lai agreed, noting that they did not discuss details nor need to. Judge Esther Toh asked if Lai, being friends with Lam, was not interested? Why not delve into details? Lai responded, “Because we assume that we all understood what was going on.”

Regarding Lai’s statement in the program, “…the protection of rule of law, you can’t keep Hong Kong the way Hong Kong has been when police become…the rule by police now, the police state now here.”

The defense asked what Lai meant by “police state.” Lai said it refers to when a place lacks rule of law, it becomes a “police state.” Judge Esther Toh asked if Lai meant that in a “police state” in Hong Kong, police could do anything they wanted. Lai responded, “I didn’t say police can do anything, I said police have power over the law.”

Judge Esther Toh asked if Lai meant “police having power over rule of law means they can do anything?” Lai responded, “That’s your interpretation,” clarifying when Toh asked if that was what he meant, Lai insisted he was just saying that in a “police state” police can do many things.

Toh asked like what? Lai said many things, those that override the law. Toh asked for examples of overriding the law. Lai stated he couldn’t specify but reiterated that police can do many things in such a situation. Toh asked if there were examples, Lai reiterated that in a place without rule of law, it becomes a “police state” where police power supersedes the law.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if Lai was suggesting police do not follow the law? Lai replied, “They can choose not to abide by the law, they can also choose to obey, that’s why I don’t mean there’s everything.”

Lee asked why Lai said police having too much power means there is no rule of law? Lai stated because if there is no rule of law, police can choose not to follow the law. Lee further inquired if Lai thought Hong Kong had become a “police state” at that time? Lai confirmed the current situation was such. Judge Susana Remedios asked how the arrest of two legislators related to police not following the law? Lai replied, “Because they are defenders, defending the people, not offenders.”

10:50 Lai’s Post Questions Arrests on “Reasonable Suspicion”; Judge Notes It’s a Common Law Arrangement

Regarding the term “police state,” the defense cited a post by Lai from July 6, 2020, in which Lai stated, “SJ says police can arrest anyone with “reasonable suspicion.” It means without any evidence of a crime, mere fancy of a policeman can be evidence of arrest. What kind of rule of law is this? Have you any doubt Hong Kong is a #Policestate?” The defense also showed a message sent by Lai to Simon Lee on the same day, along with an article from Apple Daily titled “Teresa Cheng Yeuk-wah: Police Can Arrest People on Reasonable Suspicion.” Lai confirmed in court that he authored the Twitter post.

The defense asked if Lai genuinely believed that “reasonable suspicion” could justify an arrest without any criminal evidence. Lai responded in court that he thinks arrests should not be made solely on “reasonable suspicion.” Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang interjected, noting that both before and after the sovereignty transfer, the police could arrest on “reasonable suspicion” as per common law practices, similar to those in the UK. Lai stated he was unaware of this and suggested that he might have been misled when writing the post.

Judge Esther Toh asked why Lai, who consistently claims to speak facts and truth, did not consult a lawyer before posting to verify if arrests on “reasonable suspicion” were legal. Lai said he was also misled by the content of the newspapers. The defense then showed a related article from Apple Daily, and Lai clarified that he probably did not read the article and was misled by his own ignorance, not by the newspaper.

11:00 Post Claims Being Followed Raises Concerns of Hong Kong Becoming a “Police State”; Lai: Believed to be Unlawfully Tracked by Police

The defense referenced a Twitter post by Lai from June 11, 2020, which included a news link about suspicions of being followed. The post stated, “What have we done for secret agents/ stalker trailing behind me. @Joshuawong and @JeremyTamMH? Or is it just a show of intimidation? #NSL is not yet here HK is already a #PoliceState..”

The defense asked what Lai meant by “Police State” in this post. Lai explained that despite not violating any laws, he was followed by the police, which was his assumption. Judge Esther Toh questioned how Lai knew it was the police following him and not journalists. Lai responded that it was mentioned in the news that he was followed by the police.

The defense also cited another Twitter post by Lai on the same day, “The new police unit to enforce national security law replaces rule of law by police force of expediency, thus turning HK into a police state of violence and corruption.” This post also included a related news link. Lai stated in court that this was a statement made by legislators in the news.

11:15 Break

11:40 Lai Denies Encouraging Overseas Hongkongers to Speak Out for Sanctions Against China

The defense showcased an interview from Lai’s “Livechat” on September 3, 2020, where he mentioned, “…the protection of rule of law, you can’t keep Hong Kong the way Hong Kong has been, when police becoming the…the rule by police now, the police state now here.” When asked if he had previously considered Hong Kong a “police state,” Lai denied it, stating that he felt this way as the National Security Law was about to be implemented.

The defense quoted an audience question from the program, where Lai responded that he hoped overseas Chinese could voice out and support Hongkongers, saying “don’t leave Hong Kong alone.” Lai also mentioned, “But action is also very important, not just words.” The defense asked if Lai was inviting overseas Chinese to take action. Lai explained that they couldn’t take action, so he only hoped they would speak out. Judge Susana Remedios asked who could act, to which Lai responded, their governments.

The defense then highlighted that Lai had previously stated that overseas citizens speaking out could lead foreign politicians to also speak out. In the interview, what did Lai hope overseas Chinese would do? Lai said they could make foreign politicians pay attention to Hong Kong affairs. The defense further asked if it could evolve into action? Lai clarified that he only wanted foreign politicians to speak for Hongkongers and hadn’t thought beyond that. Remedios asked if Lai thought overseas voices could attract their government’s attention, leading to action? Lai responded that only governments could act, but it doesn’t guarantee they will. Remedios further asked if Lai thought it was a real possibility? Lai countered, why not?

The defense asked if Lai was encouraging overseas Chinese to voice out, requesting other countries to impose sanctions, blockades, or hostile actions against China and Hong Kong? Lai denied this, emphasizing he only hoped they would speak out. The defense also quoted Lai asking what convincing Hong Kong meant. Lai explained that Hong Kong needs the world and the world needs Hong Kong, so both have mutual interests. He also said it might be possible to persuade China, though he had not thought of a method.

11:55 Program Indicates Trump’s Re-election More Dangerous for China, Lai: Simply Explaining the Situation

The defense cited an audience question from the interview asking how, as a dual Hong Kong-American citizen, one could attract international attention to Hong Kong in the upcoming U.S. election. Lai responded, “If Trump stays on, he is more dangerous for China than Biden. That’s because Trump really play hard balls, Trump is very unpredictable and I think the guy is very resolved. He doesn’t have that kind of a gentleman-like approach to the diplomacy and that’s the way to deal with China in a way.”

The defense asked if Lai’s comments were advocating or encouraging Trump’s tough stance. Lai denied this, indicating that Trump was already tough on his own. The defense further asked if Lai was advocating for overseas citizens to elect a president who would be more dangerous to China. Lai clarified that he did not say that; he was merely explaining the situation. Lai also denied using the interview to incite hatred towards the Hong Kong government, to incite citizens to change the political structure, or to disobey the law. He questioned how Hongkongers could change the situation at that time. The prosecution accused Lai of inciting hatred or hostility among Hong Kong residents; Lai denied ever thinking that way.

The defense asked if Lai, through the interview, requested foreign countries to impose sanctions, blockades, and hostile actions against China and Hong Kong. Lai denied this, reiterating that he was only analyzing the current situation. Judge Susana Remedios asked what Lai meant by “gentleman-like diplomatic attitude.” Lai explained it as diplomacy conducted through mild means. Judge Esther Toh asked if it meant verbal expression? Lai confirmed. Toh further asked if Lai thought speech was not a good method for dealing with China. Lai clarified he only thought Trump would not use that approach. Toh questioned if the only method was “hardball”? Lai clarified it wasn’t the only method, but it appeared effective.

The defense asked if Lai advocated this effective approach to dealing with China during the interview. Lai stated he was merely describing Trump’s approach, not claiming it was effective during the interview.

12:15 Defense Inquires About Lai’s September Tweets, Lai Believes Most Were Not Written by Him

The defense displayed a tweet from September 4 on Lai’s account stating, “We shall never give up hope when there are brave citizen journalists like her. Truth prevails.” Lai mentioned he does not remember if he authored this tweet.

Another tweet from the same day read, “Despite what the Catholic diocese says, #CCP always gets its way into the classrooms, through the use of force and persecutions to brainwash our future generations.” Lai indicated that this tweet was likely authored by Simon Lee.

On September 6, Lai retweeted a post from Galileo Cheng about a 12-year-old girl being pushed down in Mong Kok, with her mother stating the girl was just there to buy paintbrushes. Lai’s tweet added, “#HongKong will remain a #PoliceState as long as #CCP wants to make us fear and hate the police.”

Lai stated he does not know who Galileo Cheng is and could not determine whether this tweet was written by Lee or himself. Judge Alex Lee asked if Lai was actually unable to distinguish who authored the tweets? Lai agreed, noting the language used was not distinctive, but he was certain some were authored by Simon Lee, as indicated by the use of English.

On September 7, Lai retweeted a post from Xinqi Su about the same incident with the 12-year-old girl in Mong Kok, adding, “The regime can say whatever they think and you become a criminal.”

When asked if he knows Xinqi Su, Lai believed the tweet was retweeted by Simon Lee, as he never reads others’ posts, and stated that the phrase “The regime can say whatever they think and you become a criminal” was not written by him.

12:21 Judge Questions Meaning of Free Speech, Lai: Accepting People Saying the Wrong Thing

During the session, Lai’s tweet was shown where he commented on a report about Tan Tak-chi’s arrest for sedition, stating, “Word not acts, is now a crime in HK. This is the ‘freedom of speech’ under the #NSL.”

Responding to defense questioning, Lai confirmed he wrote the tweet himself to present the facts to the readers, denying it was intended to incite hatred against the Hong Kong government.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked for clarification on Lai’s view of freedom of speech: Is it that in a free-speech society, anyone can say anything? Lai responded, “I think freedom of speech includes allowing someone to say something wrong.”

Esther Toh Lye-ping inquired, in a country where laws prohibit libel, slander, and falsehoods, if someone is punished for such acts against another person or institution, “would you say that country lacks freedom of speech?” Lai replied he hadn’t considered such scenarios, focusing only on the state of free speech in Hong Kong.

Esther Toh Lye-ping clarified, “Yes, but I’m just trying to understand, you keep saying freedom of speech. I just wondered what in your mind constitutes freedom of speech. Does that mean that that a society that imposes laws against slander and libel does not have freedom?”

Lai explained that he didn’t mean that, stating, “Defamation is never free speech. By my definition, anyone can say anything, but if someone makes a slanderous statement, that is definitely not free speech.” Esther Toh Lye-ping pressed further, “So a person lying or being incorrect is unacceptable, right?” Lai maintained that freedom of speech is about accepting that people can be wrong.

Esther Toh Lye-ping posed a hypothetical scenario: If she spoke very negatively about the defense attorney publicly and it was clearly wrong, potentially leading to a libel charge, would that mean she doesn’t have freedom of speech? Lai replied, “Yes, if your intent was to defame.” Esther Toh Lye-ping asked, so she wouldn’t have freedom of speech? Lai clarified, “No, you still have freedom of speech because the law will make a judgment on it.”

Esther Toh Lye-ping questioned, “So, there isn’t ultimate freedom of speech in society?” Lai noted, “the freedom of speech I’m speaking is in general, I’m not saying that to the extreme ultimate, I’m stating in general.”

Esther Toh Lye-ping then suggested, “So the person making allegations should make sure that he or she checks the facts, before making such allegations?” Lai agreed, “That’s right, but if you do not have the intent to libel, it’s wrong” Esther Toh Lye-ping concluded, “Then I won’t argue with you further.”

The defense asked if Apple Daily had been sued for libel? Is freedom of speech not absolute? Lai agreed. The defense inquired, so where are the limits to freedom? Lai responded, “I don’t know. I am not a lawyer. I don’t know the limit. But you know, you ask me whether Apple Daily sued for libel, and I tell you we had cases like this but we never lost.”

Regarding the tweet about Tan Tak-chi’s arrest, the defense asked if Lai had read the news about the arrest at the time. Lai said he didn’t remember. Judge Alex Lee asked if Lai had at least read the linked article? Lai said he might have only seen the headline, not the full article. The defense further inquired if Lai was aware of the sedition charge at the time? Lee interrupted, noting that as a layperson to the law, it might be difficult to answer, as Tan was charged under the Criminal Code, not the National Security Law. The defense explained they were trying to understand the meaning of freedom of speech, while Esther Toh Lye-ping suggested the defense should first explain the meaning of sedition.

The defense asked if Lai was aware of the sedition charge under the Crimes Ordinance. Lai confirmed. The defense queried whether he had heard of this charge before or after the National Security Law? Lai said he didn’t remember and reiterated that he wasn’t a lawyer, making it hard to explain the specifics of the charge. The defense further asked, regarding his awareness in September 2020, if Lai understood what constituted a sedition offense? Lai indicated he probably didn’t understand it as well as a lawyer would.

12:27 Lunch

14:34 Judge: Not Interested in Pompeo’s Twitter? Lai: I Don’t Follow or Read Others’ Tweets

During the session, the defense displayed a series of Lai’s tweets from September 2020, including one from the 7th, “For justice and freedom, #HKers fighting spirit remains still high, despite NSL’s seeming seismic intimidation effect.”

A tweet from September 8th stated, “Xi should be personally responsible for making China such a pathetic plight. The world should not only separate him from the people, but also from the party. Let him be held responsible and the plight won’t last long.”

Another tweet from the same day mentioned, “#CCP seems to be angry at Australians, and the Australian government because the regime believes the nation’s economy depends on export, China is more appropriately called a ‘socialist nation with characteristics of 15th century mercantilist imperialism.'”

On September 9th, Lai retweeted a post by then U.S. Secretary of State Pompeo, which stated, “Democracy respect for fundamental freedoms, and government accountability to the people are the best paths to stability in Hong Kong-not draconian efforts to limit free expression, delay elections and restrict travel,” to which Lai responded, “Thank you @SecPompeo for standing up for HK people.”

Lai stated that these four tweets were not written by him but likely by Simon Lee. When asked why Simon Lee wrote the tweets in early September, Lai said he did not remember. Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping then inquired if Lai was uninterested in Pompeo’s Twitter, to which Lai responded that he does not follow or read anyone else’s tweets.

14:45 Defense: Is the UK’s Grant of Residency to Hong Kongers Hostile to China? Lai: It Simply Provides More Options

During the September 10 episode of “Live Chat With Jimmy Lai,” guests included Mark Clifford, an independent non-executive director at Next Media, and Benedict Rogers, founder of Hong Kong Watch. Rogers stated, “I really agree with Secretary Pompeo. I mean, it’s something I say myself that I’m actually very pro-China as a country and as a people. I’m not anti-China. I’m anti-CCP.”

Lai responded, “Right, right, right, right, that has to be made very clear you know.” When asked by the defense what his repeated affirmations meant, Lai said he did not realize he had said “right” so many times but agreed that the point needed to be clear. He confirmed agreeing with Rogers.

Rogers continued, “So we saw the BNO announcement, we saw the suspension of the extradition agreement and I think we’ll see other measures as things develop in the months to come. But the awareness of the need to respond and also the awareness of the need for Britain to lead the international community on this I think is much, much higher than it was.”

Lai replied, “I mean the leadership is very important because they were our old colonial government. You know, they have a responsibility, the moral responsibility for the world to pay attention to Hong Kong at this.”

The defense asked if Lai, through his reply, was advocating for the UK government to fulfill its moral responsibility by adopting the measures Rogers suggested. Lai denied this, saying he merely thought the UK government had a moral responsibility to grant residency rights to Hong Kongers. When asked if he thought the UK granting residency rights to Hong Kongers was an act of hostility towards China and Hong Kong, Lai said it was not, it just provided more options for Hong Kongers.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked which part of Rogers’ statement Lai agreed with, whether it was about the measures. Lai said no, he agreed that the international community should pay attention to Hong Kong. When asked what Rogers meant by “other measures,” Lai stated he had not delved deeply into it and noted it was Rogers’ speculation, so he did not pay attention. When asked if Lai was aware that Rogers was a member of the British government, Lai said he was not.

Regarding Rogers’ statement, “I worked very closely with Cardinal Charles Bo, who the audience may be aware has been very outspoken on Hong Kong and China,” Lai said he did not know who Cardinal Charles Bo was, only that he had baptized Rogers.

15:05 Lai Under Questioning States He Never Considered Asking Foreigners to Pay Attention to Hong Kong a Crime

In response to Ben Rogers during the program, Lai stated, “because now your role is a lot more important than before the national security law, because now if we talk to, the foreign officials , foreign government officials and all that, we are in danger of being charged with collusion of foreign powers. So your voice just is support of us outside has become a lot more important. Please help us and do your job as much as possible. We really appreciate it.”

When asked by the defense what he meant, Lai said, “After the national security law was implemented, we could no longer contact foreign political figures or leaders, or we might be suspected of collusion, or even charged with collusion. So, I think he can help by rallying foreign political figures to care about us and make a difference.”

The defense inquired what actions Lai couldn’t take himself and hoped Rogers could achieve. Lai responded, “He’s abroad; he can do many things that we can’t do here.” When asked for examples, Lai mentioned talking to foreign political figures and discussing Hong Kong with foreign government officials.

The defense questioned whether Lai had ever considered, under the national security law or other laws, that his request for foreigners to pay attention to Hong Kong could be a criminal act. Lai said he had never thought of that because Rogers is not a politician or an official. When asked again whether he considered that requesting foreign attention could be a criminal act under the national security law or other laws, Lai said he had not.

The defense further inquired, besides urging Rogers to call for international attention to Hong Kong, what else did Lai want him to do? Lai mentioned talking with foreign officials and governments to express concern for Hong Kong.

Regarding Lai’s statement, “we need outside voice as much as possible because the international voice is our savior here. the more attention they pay to Hong Kong, the safer hong Kong will become,” Lai explained he wanted foreign attention for Hong Kong because, besides foreign support, there is no other support for Hong Kong. When asked what he meant by “savior,” Lai stated, “I mean just to save us from suppression.”

Asked how to achieve this salvation, Lai felt that foreign attention could influence the Chinese government. When further questioned if the Chinese government listens to foreign voices, Lai said sometimes. Asked for specific examples, Lai noted, “I think sometimes they dial back the rhetoric.”

On Lai’s mention of “.…talk to the politician, to, you know, alert them to pay attention to what happened here. Because if they see what happened here. They naturally will, will resonate with our sentiment, resonate with the laws of our freedom and rule of law. And that is very important for the international voice to support us. The pressure by the international community to be given to CCP, it’s very important,” the defense asked what Lai expected from foreign politicians. Lai said he had no specific expectations, but hoped they would respond and take actions to help Hong Kong if they increased their attention. Asked what he meant by politicians, Lai referred to elected officials.

When asked what Lai meant by “pressure,” he explained that foreign concerns about the CCP are significant and that the CCP is also worried about international pressure, noting that the CCP is very sensitive to pressure from the international community.

15:18 Lai: I Don’t Retweet Others’ Posts

The defense displayed a tweet from Lai on September 10, which included an article from Apple Daily about a real estate tycoon facing corruption charges after criticizing Xi Jinping’s handling of the pandemic, stating, “maybe it is just another Orwellian plot. But it can also be another sign of the big brother falling apart. Let’s hope for the best.” 

On the same day, another tweet showed Lai retweeting Tommy Walker’s post, which mentioned a resident holding up a banner. Lai commented, “I am so moved. We shall stand together, never walk alone. “

A tweet from September 11 stated, “Heroes does not descend from the sky: there are only courageous commoners who stand up to injustice.” 

Lai pointed out that he does not remember these three tweets or the related reports, and he also stated that he never retweeted others’ posts.

15:31 Break

15:50 Lai Confirms He Authored Post Mentioning “Consequences of Wolf Warriors’ Aggression”

The defense continued to present Lai’s tweets from September. On September 11, one tweet stated, “Young Hong Kongers will help to drive the growth of both the demand and supply of UK’s economy just like what our generations did for Hong Kong after WWII.” 

A tweet from September 12 read, “India shows the world the right way to deal with #CCP don’t shy from confrontations: It’s strength, not weakness, they respect.” 

Another tweet from the same day, featuring an opinion piece by Yeung Ching-kee from Apple Daily about Tam Tak-chi being charged with sedition, stated, “Heroes do not descend from the sky, there are only courageous commoners who stand up to injustice. Here is a courageous HK “commoner” standing up against injustice.” 

Another tweet referred to an Apple Daily article titled “Do Not Hold the 2022 Winter Olympics in China,” stating, “People of conscience please listen to the voice of justice.” 

Lai was uncertain whether these four articles were written by himself or Simon Lee.

Regarding another tweet from the same day, “@freedomhouse thanks for the encouragement. Together we shall defend freedom for everyone against tyrannical regimes.” Lai stated this was likely written by Simon Lee as he was not aware of what “freedom house” was.

Another tweet from the same day stated, “Wolf warriors’ belligerence has consequences : the world turns against #CCP. EU countries are finally holding together to safeguard their sovereignty against CCP’s bullying”, which Lai confirmed he wrote, simply stating the facts.

Another tweet stated, “#Disney tried to appease #CCP to get into the Chinese market. It turns out even the propaganda machine blames the colossus failure on “misunderstanding Chinese culture”, which Lai said he did not write.

16:05 Judges Concerned About Trial Progress, Including Prosecution Cross-Examination Possibly Extending to February Next Year

The defense presented a WhatsApp conversation between Lai and Yeung Ching-kee:

Jimmy Lai: “Li Ping, today I read Heung Shu-fai’s column mentioning a commentator expert named Ma Ti-yin (馬鐵穎). He said that Ma’s commentary on China and Japan is insightful. Can we invite him to write for our opinion page? Thanks, Lai.”

Yeung Ching-kee: “Cheung Kim-hung has already contacted a senior Japanese journalist, Amakasu (Masaharu Takahashi), to contribute an article, which will be published on Wednesday. As for Ma, I will look for him and see how we can arrange it. Thanks. 

I’ll forward to you an excerpt from a Central Party School professor Cai Xia’s talk about you and Apple. I’m continuing to persuade her to write an article.”

The defense asked if Lai had read articles by Ma Ti-yin. Lai said no, he only recommended him to Yeung Ching-kee based on the recommendation of Heung Shu-fai, the first editor-in-chief of “Next Magazine,” because he knows Heung’s recommendations are always good.

The defense then showed a segment from the September 17 episode of the “Live Chat With Jimmy Lai” program, featuring guests like Mark Clifford and former “Wall Street Journal” columnist Claudia Rosett. The defense asked if “Wall Street Journal” editor Bill McGurn introduced Claudia Rosett to Lai? Lai said no, explaining that Claudia had worked in Hong Kong for a while, the two knew each other, lost contact for some time, and then she reached out to him again.

Regarding Lai’s comments, “because the way the CCP treat Hong kong shows the true face of CCP and the future of the world would have to face the same fate if they don’t start to resist and coerce CCP to change, to assimilate into the value of the free world. because China being so big, the behavior of CCP imposing on everything they deal with the world definitely is going to create conflicts,” the defense asked what Lai meant by”resist and coerce.” Lai described “resist” as “resisting the CCP’s encroachment on the value of the international system”; “coerce” meant making the CCP accept this. The defense then asked what it means to assimilate into the values of the free world. Lai stated it means becoming part of the free world.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked Lai about “coerce,” questioning, “Do you mean that some force has to be used to persuade the CCP to join Western values?” Lai affirmed this. Toh further inquired what kind of “force” Lai referred to. Lai said he hadn’t thought specifically but believed that if everyone united to persuade the CCP, making them realize that this is the only way to negotiate with the world, it would be a tremendous force.

Toh noted that Lai used “coerce” rather than “persuade” in the program. Lai reiterated that a united effort would be a significant force. The defense asked what kind of “force” Lai was referring to. Lai responded, “If the whole Western world united together, that would be a great force.” The defense asked if Lai meant actual force. Lai said “uniting” is practical.

The defense further asked what kind of “practical” he meant. Lai explained, “When they all join together as one force, that will be a great force to China.” The defense remarked, “We are not in Star Wars movies. We are talking about international.”

Lai reiterated, “I think if all the Western countries join together to resist China’s way of dealing with them in international affairs or a trade war, that would be a great force.”

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if Lai was suggesting forming an alliance; Lai replied that it could be an alliance or a coalition without formally allying. Li further asked if it was an alliance against China, to which Lai agreed. Li noted that this resistance was defensive, and Lai concurred.

The defense asked how China negotiates with the world. Lai stated, “They don’t follow the rules. They negotiate with the world based on their own values, which leads to conflicts.” Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked for examples, but Lai said he could not provide any, as he was speaking generally.

Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios inquired about which rules China does not adhere to. Lai mentioned that conflicts arise in international trade because China does not follow rules. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang interjected, noting, “We are going in circles now,” to which Lai agreed, “Yes, we are going in circles.”

Alex Lee Wan-tang then asked if Lai thought that if China or the CCP does not follow the rules set by the West, then the West should not allow them to participate in the ‘game.’ Lai responded, “I didn’t say the Western world shouldn’t allow them to play this game,” but rather that foreigners should resist and ensure China understands its mistakes, “China was dealing with them, and that’s why conflict has a result.”

Prosecutor Anthony Chau Tin-hang expressed concern about the progress of the trial, noting that Lai’s account involved over 800 posts, and the defense was currently addressing the 600th post on Lai’s 20th day of testimony. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang also expressed concern about the schedule and the need to make arrangements. Lai stated in court that he did not know if he had written most of the posts.

The defense argued that since the prosecution relies on these posts for evidence, they needed to question Lai about them. They focused on posts potentially considered sedition, with questions from the “Live Chat” program yet to be completed. Alex Lee Wan-tang estimated that even if the defense could complete its main questioning by January 10th of the following year, the prosecution would need several weeks to cross-examine; the prosecution estimated needing 10 to 15 days for cross-examination, projecting it would be mid-February by then. The defense mentioned that one to two more “lunchbox meetings” still required questioning Lai.

16:40 Court Adjourns

The Witness