Jimmy Lai, founder of Next Digital, faces charges including “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces” under Hong Kong’s National Security Law. The trial, held at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts, acting as the High Court, entered its 113th day on Thursday, marking Lai’s 21st day of testimony.

During the proceedings, the court reviewed footage from a September 2020 interview in which Lai said, “If China goes to democracy or lets the people free, I don’t see how the CCP can still be in power.” Lai testified that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) governs by restricting freedoms and argued that granting such freedoms would undermine its control, as China lacks the infrastructure to govern democratically.

In the same interview, Lai commented that European Union countries struggle to deal with China. He denied advocating for foreign alliances, stating he was merely explaining why European nations might ally with the United States, as they cannot confront China independently. He added that a united effort among countries could pressure China to change its behavior, benefiting both China and the world.

The case is being heard by High Court-designated National Security Law judges Esther Toh Lai-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-kin, and Senior Public Prosecutor Crystal Chan Wing-sam. Lai is represented by Senior Counsel Robert Pang Yiu-hung, Barrister Steven Kwan, and Marc Corlett KC, a New Zealand lawyer qualified to practice in Hong Kong.

Detailed Transcription

10:00 – Court in Session

10:10 – Lai: The CCP rules the country by restricting people’s freedomsThe defense continued questioning Lai’s remarks from the “Live Chat With Jimmy Lai” program on September 17, 2020. During the program, Lai stated, “I think if they keep Hong Kong as free and brought in and protected by rule of law, it would have shown to the world a very good model for their Belt and Road concept.”

Lai explained that he didn’t view the “Belt and Road” initiative as just a trading concept but as a set of values. Only if shared values existed could trade flow unimpeded. China’s differing values, he said, would harm the project.

In the interview, Lai also said, “If China [had] gone to democracy or letting the people free. I don’t see CCP can still be in power.”
In court, Lai explained that since the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) governs by restricting freedoms, granting such freedoms would dismantle its governing system. He argued that China does not currently have the capability or system to govern democratically.

Lai further noted: “EU countries were very reluctant to follow American policy on China because they want to do business. But the more they look at China’s behavior, the more they feel so uncomfortable. And they cannot deal with China alone because they won’t have the leverage as a small country to deal with a big China.”
The defense asked if Lai was advocating for EU countries to ally with the United States to resist China. Lai denied this, saying he was merely explaining why such alliances formed. He argued that by combining their strength, countries could influence China to change its behavior, benefiting both China and the world.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if Lai referred to changing China’s government and values. Lai said he didn’t expect China to change its values but hoped it would change its behavior. He believed that gradual behavioral changes might eventually alter values.

10:20 – In the program, the pandemic was likened to ‘Pearl Harbor’ — Lai: Represents an ‘awakening of danger’
The defense referenced a remark from former Wall Street Journal columnist Claudia Rosett, who likened the pandemic to “Pearl Harbor” during a program. Lai responded at the time, “I think it’s a Pearl Harbor in a sense.”
In court, Lai said the analogy represented an “awakening of danger” similar to how Pearl Harbor alerted the U.S. to Japan’s military threat. Lai added that the pandemic similarly woke people up to the dangers posed by China.

Judge Lee Wan-teng asked if Lai believed China posed a crisis to Western countries. Lai argued that unless China makes changes, it could harm other nations due to dissatisfaction caused by the pandemic.

The defense also cited Lai’s earlier statement: “They all want China to change. But China could not change or [be] perceived to [be] changing unless Xi Jinping changes his War Wolf attitude to the world by stepping down.” Lai clarified that his comments merely reflected his belief that Xi’s leadership style hindered change.

10:48 – Post mentions Regina Ip withdrawing assets from the US, Lai agrees that using the term ‘sanctions’ was an oversight
The defense displayed a September 17 tweet mentioning Regina Ip withdrawing assets from the U.S.:
“When America and the rest of the free world are aligned and put in place the sanctions, CCP’s accomplices have nowhere to turn, and their assets have nowhere to hide. Their evil deeds persecuting HKers will have consequences.”

Lai noted he couldn’t confirm if he or Simon Lee wrote the post, denying advocacy for sanctions. He said “consequences” referred to marginalization by the international community, not sanctions specifically.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked if Regina Ip could face sanctions. Lai said it was possible but reiterated he wasn’t calling for sanctions.

11:10 – Twitter post claims ‘Today’s Hong Kong will be tomorrow’s world’ — Lai: Written by Simon Lee
The defense displayed two September tweets:

1. “#CCP alerted the free world of its contrary values, and revealed that if the regime’s assertions are not confronted, there will be dire consequences for world peace. It is why European countries speak out for HK and align their China policy with US.”
2. “EU countries speak out for HK shows the tide has changed. The free world is waking up to the scenario that what is today in HK will be the world tomorrow.”

Lai said the second tweet was likely written by Simon Lee, as he himself wouldn’t use the word “scenario.” He confirmed there wasn’t a specific arrangement for tweeting, and while Lee sometimes edited tweets, they rarely discussed them directly.

11:29 – Break

12:07 – Post mentions Vatican’s agreement with the CCP, Lai: Simon Lee knew I opposed this agreement
The defense displayed tweets from September, including one criticizing the Vatican’s 2018 agreement with the CCP. Lai said Simon Lee, who shared his Catholic faith, knew he opposed the agreement. Lai denied writing the tweets but said they reflected his opposition to the Vatican’s stance.

12:30 – Lai denies advocating for US military presence in Taiwan
The defense referenced a dialogue record from the Apple Daily’s English news group where Lai discussed increasing Taiwan-related coverage. Lai said Taiwan would become a focus in coming years, but he denied instructing staff to focus on negative news about China. He also explained that covering Taiwan news helped readers understand China better, which would aid them in dealing with China in the future.

The defense referred to a September 2020 “Live Chat With Jimmy Lai” program, where Lai said:
“If China sanctions trade with Taiwan, it could be a big setback for Taiwan… US sanctions in many ways have made [China] rely on Taiwan.”
Lai denied advocating for technological sanctions, clarifying that he was describing the situation.

He also said in an interview: “I think it’s just the beginning of upgrades of Taiwan’s status. There will be a lot of upgrading of Taiwan’s status with the relationship with the US… Japan is remilitarizing, and troops may move to Taiwan.”
Lai clarified in court that he referred to the possibility of U.S. troops moving from Japan to Taiwan but denied advocating for this.

13:02 – Lunch

14:33 — Lai denies advocating for a Western technology embargo, reiterates he was merely stating facts

The defense continued questioning Lai about his comments during the “Live Chat” program. Lai stated, “you know the technology embargo from the US will lead to the technology embargo of all the western countries because all the western countries need the US technology to complement it.” The defense asked if Lai was advocating for a technology embargo by Western countries. Lai responded that he was only stating facts. The defense then asked if Lai was advocating for Western countries to join the US in a technology embargo. Lai denied this, explaining that the US initiates the embargo, and Western countries follow the US lead because they also utilize a lot of US technology. Lai also noted that the term “sanction” he mentioned in the program is similar in meaning to the US’s “embargo.”

The defense displayed posts from Lai’s Twitter account dated September 24, 2020, where Lai tweeted, “First there was a foreign independent judge who resigned in protest of #NSL. Then the CJ has to stand openly to defend HK’s rule of law from CCP puppets’ attacks. It is obvious how bad the situation of HK judicial system has become. (1/2)” and “The global legal profession and community should voice out your outrage and support Hong Kong’s fight for judicial independence and the rule of law. (2/2)”  Lai stated that both posts were written by Simon Lee.

14:45 — Post mentions police limiting media coverage as ‘sanctioning the public’s right to know’ — Judge questions media restrictions at the White House

The defense displayed a conversation from the same day on the work platform Slack, where Lai told his colleagues, “Please bring the difficulties encountered, inspired insights, and suggestions here, so we can understand them in advance and discuss them when the time comes.” Lai confirmed that these issues were later discussed during a ‘lunchbox meeting’. Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked if Lai asked colleagues to make suggestions on Slack? Lai confirmed, saying he would respond to colleagues or discuss it during the ‘lunchbox meetings’.

The defense presented the highlights of the ‘lunchbox meeting’ from September 30, sent by then-editor-in-chief Ryan Law Wai-kwong, including “finding ways to maintain contract colleagues, support them to facilitate their work, possibly organize activities, send books, etc.; strengthen news about China and Taiwan.” Lai added in court that his secretary would notify meeting participants of the time and place of the meetings.

The defense then displayed a post from Lai’s account on September 25, where Lai mentioned, “Hong Kong is one step closer to resembling authoritarian #CCP, the #PoliceState with such sanctioning of citizen’s right to be informed.” At that time, Lai retweeted a post from Apple Daily’s account, which stated, “The #HKpolice created fresh controversy this week by restricting the reporting of its events to only ‘internationally recognized’ media outlets and local news organizations registered with the government’s Info Services Dept.” Lai said the post was written by Simon Lee.

The defense asked how Lai understood the ‘sanctioning of the public’s right to know’. Lai explained that the news mentioned the government restricted coverage to only ‘internationally recognized’ media organizations, meaning only certain media could report the news. Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked if, in the US, not every media outlet can attend White House press briefings, does that make the US a ‘police state’? Lai responded no, because there are security considerations at the White House, journalists speak directly with the President, and the restrictions mentioned were about the ‘gathering of news.’

15:05 — Lai: Police raid on Apple Daily building intended to intimidate the media; Judge: You still wrote for the column afterwards, wasn’t Apple Daily intimidated?

The defense displayed a conversation from September 27th published in Apple Daily’s column “Success and Failure, All but a Laugh,” which mentioned, “The CCP has infiltrated all levels of society, greatly suppressing them, with police powers overriding the law, or it could be said that the police have long become the law.”

The defense asked, “What does ‘the CCP infiltrating all levels of society’ mean?” Lai explained that he was referring to the CCP changing schools, police, and interfering with religion. Regarding the part that mentioned “police powers overriding the law, or it could be said that the police have long become the law. Hong Kong is now a police city,” Lai pointed out that government power has permeated life, “that is the signs of a police state.”

The defense asked if there was religious freedom at that time. Lai stated that the churches were under tremendous pressure, leading to Cardinal Joseph Zen, the Apostolic Administrator of the Catholic Diocese of Hong Kong at the time, issuing a statement. Research shows that on September 21 of the same year, Cardinal Zen issued a pastoral letter titled “Maintaining Communion with the Church,” reiterating the Church’s support for “democracy” as a system of governance for society.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked if Cardinal Zen told Lai about the churches facing tremendous pressure. Lai said no, he learned about it from the news.

The defense asked, on what basis did Lai state that “police powers override the law, or it could be said that the police have long become the law”? Lai mentioned the raid by 200 police officers on the Apple Daily building. Judge Alex Lee Wan-teng asked what the key point was. Lai stated, “There was no charge, nothing, and they just walked in and raided the media.”

Judge Alex Lee Wan-teng asked if the police had a search warrant. Lai confirmed they did, but this should not be the way media are treated.

Regarding the statement in the article, “The streets look the same but no longer feel familiar, they no longer resonate with people,” the defense asked what Lai meant. Lai said that Hong Kong was no longer the Hong Kong of the past. The defense asked what “past”? Lai referred to the time before the National Security Law was implemented.

As for the statement in the article, “200 police officers stormed into the Apple Daily building, extensively searching files, further infringing on press freedom; intended to kill the chicken to scare the monkeys, to intimidate all media,” Lai said, “Because after that, all media were shocked to suffocation, nobody dared to write anything anymore.”

The defense asked what Lai meant by “all media.” Lai said he was referring to the media he was aware of. Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping noted that Lai continued to write at that time. Lai said that the media realized their work could no longer continue as before. Toh repeated the same question, Lai asked Toh what she wanted to ask, Toh noted that the raid happened in August, but Lai was still able to write in September? Lai responded, “I saw the phenomenon, and that’s why I said it.”

Toh noted, then not all media were intimidated as Lai suggested, because Lai was still writing, wasn’t Apple Daily intimidated? Lai reiterated that he was only writing about what he saw. Toh asked, so not all media were intimidated? Lai said, he should say “almost all” media were intimidated. The defense asked, was Lai referring to Hong Kong media? Lai agreed, especially the newspapers and online media.

Regarding the article’s mention that “after this battle, which media would dare not to align? Some say the ‘anti-China and chaotic Hong Kong’ Next Media has not yet been covered, it still adheres to its policy of reporting news and expressing opinions, showing that there is still freedom of the press in Hong Kong. Yes, we operate as usual, but we risk being dragged away and shut down every day. When you have to be careful about what you write and say, are you still free? Freedom is carefree.”

The defense asked about Lai’s mention of “we operate as usual,” why say all media were intimidated? Lai said, “After the raid, that’s why all the media was like us, we were worried about apprehension, we were worried about the closure, and this is not a freedom of speech. When you have to worry, when you have fear of being apprehended, I think freedom of speech is that we don’t have to have fear closed down, even you make the mistake.”

Regarding the article’s mention that “the police brazenly modified the definition of ‘media representative’ in the Police General Orders,” Lai said he learned about this from the news. Judge Alex Lee Wan-teng asked if Lai meant that journalists were not allowed to cover news or not allowed to attend press conferences, as the two are very different; Lai said it referred to covering news, and noted that restrictions on coverage have always existed, so he did not know to what extent the police had modified the definition of ‘media representative’.

Alex Lee Wan-teng also inquired if Apple Daily, as a registered media, was able to attend government-held press conferences? Lai said no. The defense asked when this started, after the National Security Law was enacted? Lai said it was before the National Security Law came into effect, the government sometimes did not allow Apple Daily to attend press conferences, and after the National Security Law was fully implemented, “sometimes they asked us to get out.”

Alex Lee Wan-teng asked, although Apple Daily reporters could not attend press conferences, could they still report on the matters of the conference? Lai agreed, but reporters could not receive materials from inside the conference, Alex Lee asked if he meant press releases? Lai said, people inside the conference would speak, and they could only compile information from other media that were able to enter the conference.

15:31— Break

15:52 — Column suggests ‘Xi Jinping stepping down’ as a solution to deadlock; Lai: Because Xi does not understand international affairs

In the same column, it was mentioned, “The CCP’s use of the National Security Law as a crude fascist means to suppress, destroying the promises of high autonomy, judicial independence, freedom of speech, and the rule of law in Hong Kong, proves that the international community cannot trust the CCP.” The defense asked if Lai was inciting hatred against the central government and the Hong Kong government through these words. Lai denied this, stating he was merely presenting facts.

Regarding the mention of “destroying the guarantee of Hong Kong’s high autonomy,” Lai stated he was merely describing the situation after the National Security Law came into effect. Another part, “proves the international community cannot trust the CCP. A bankruptcy of integrity has led to a ‘fundamental’ shift in attitude towards the CCP, especially among Americans,” Lai also denied inciting hatred against the central regime, reiterating he was merely stating facts.

Regarding the mention, “America’s anti-communist fervor has also awakened the EU, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and ASEAN countries, changing their policies towards China,” Lai denied advocating for sanctions, stating he was only describing the problems China has faced over 40 years since opening its markets.

As for the part that mentioned, “Meanwhile, if Trump further publicly acknowledges Taiwan’s sovereignty, or even moves some of the US troops stationed in Japan to Taiwan, how would the CCP respond then?” Lai denied calling for the US government to be hostile towards China, noting that many people have commented on this issue, thinking such a scenario is likely to occur, hence his mention here.

Regarding the mention, “The only way to unravel this deadlock is for Xi Jinping to step down,” Lai denied using this statement to incite hatred against the central regime, explaining that since Xi Jinping came to power, China began to have problems with the US and the West due to his lack of understanding of international affairs, believing this is something only the Party can resolve.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-teng inquired, “Apple Daily’s management had discussed with colleagues not to use ‘Wuhan pneumonia,’ yet Lai still used ‘Wuhan pneumonia’?” Lai responded that they were in the newsroom, while he was writing a column, and he hadn’t paid attention to their discussions, thinking that this was something the editors should be aware of. Lee asked if Lai chose ‘Wuhan pneumonia’ over ‘pandemic’? Lai said he was accustomed to using ‘Wuhan pneumonia,’ and it might have been an oversight.

The defense mentioned that Lai used the term ‘coronavirus’ to describe the pandemic in ‘Live Chat’? Lai noted that another guest had used that term, so he adopted their wording. The defense asked if Lai intended his articles to incite people to change Hong Kong’s political system by unlawful means, cause dissatisfaction among residents of Hong Kong, or encourage others to break the law? Lai categorically denied this.

15:52—  Post mentions Cardinal Zen going to the Vatican to ‘fight against evil’; Lai: Believes it refers to Father Peter Choy, now thinks the wording was too strong

The defense displayed a series of Lai’s Twitter posts, including a retweet from the EU Office in Hong Kong and Macau on September 28, where it was mentioned that the EU is concerned about the National Security Law infringing on human rights, which Lai indicated was retweeted by Simon Lee.

On the same day, Lai posted about CCP members being denied entry to the US to visit their daughters, stating, “Such ban will have a powerful impact , especially on senior CCP members who have relatives, money and assets in US and Europe. To protect their own interests, hence their power. they will upset Xi’s status quo.”

Lai denied that he or Simon Lee incited hostility towards China through the posts. Judge Lee Wan-teng asked, so Lai disagrees with the content of the posts? Lai confirmed.

A post on September 29 mentioned, “Although @CardinalZen knew there was only a very slim chance of success, he still took a long flight to the Vatican to fight against evil (despite his old age of 88) He is a true hero.” Lai confirmed he wrote it. Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked, what is the evil referred to? Lai believed it referred to Father Peter Choy from the Hong Kong Diocese but had forgotten the details. The defense asked if Lai knew of any evil acts by Peter Choy? Lai said he only knew that many people opposed him becoming a bishop, and he apologized for using the term “evil,” acknowledging the term was too strong.

Another post on the same day retweeted Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen mentioning Taiwan as an ideal investment destination, stating, “Not only will the increased presence of international capital bring prosperity to Taiwan, it is also a way to build the mutual interests. Hence security for the island. President @iingwen made the right move embracing an open and business friendly approach. #台灣加油” 

Lai believed this post was written by Simon Lee, as he does not read others’ posts.

Two additional posts from the same day mentioned, “@aww It is better late than never. Trade should be mutually beneficial. if the cutting off hurts the West. it hurts China more. The West just wants to correct China’s behavior of taking advantage of the free trade while keeping itself a closed system” and “It hurts the world, everyone indeed to allow such imbalance to go on.”

Lai believed both were written by Simon Lee.

16:28 Court adjourns

The case is adjourned until January 6th of next year for further hearing.

The Witness