Jimmy Lai, founder of Apple Daily, has been charged with “conspiring to collude with foreign forces” and other offenses. After a brief adjournment in late December, the trial resumed Monday, Jan. 6, at West Kowloon Magistrates’ Court, which is temporarily serving as the High Court. The hearing marked the 114th day of proceedings, with Lai testifying for the 22nd day.

The defense presented internal group messages from Apple Daily discussing plans to “strengthen China and Taiwan news coverage” and to consider inviting Sang Pu to host a program independently. In court, Lai testified that the plan was not implemented because Sang Pu had advocated for “Hong Kong independence.”

During questioning, Lai addressed comments he made during an interview, where he said, “Taiwan will be a very unique country.” He denied in court that Taiwan is a sovereign country, explaining that he was expressing a hope for the Taiwanese government to align closely with U.S. policies. He added that if he had been advocating for Taiwan independence, he would have explicitly used the term “independence.”

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping questioned Lai about his seemingly contradictory statements, noting that he denied supporting Taiwan’s sovereignty but had also stated in the interview that “Taiwan is creating a country.” Under further questioning, Lai agreed that referring to Taiwan as a “place” would have been more appropriate.

Detailed Transcription

09:57 Jimmy Lai Appears in Court

Jimmy Lai appeared in court, and members of the public called out to him, “Happy New Year! Wishing you good health!” Lai responded with a wave, saying, “Happy New Year.”

10:00 Court in Session

Defense barrister Steven Kwan informed the court that senior counsel Robert Pang Yiu-hung is occupied with other matters and will arrive later, while barrister Ernie Tung is delayed due to traffic congestion.

10:03 Jimmy Lai: Invitation to Sang Pu to Independently Host a Program Ultimately Not Realized

The defense presented Jimmy Lai’s Twitter post from September 30, 2020:

 “#CCP cannot be trusted. It has been too costly for the free world to believe any further the words of the regime. It is time to make China follow the universal integrity and to honor its promises.”

The post also included a link to a report by The Australian titled: “Why Xi’s dictatorship can’t be trusted.”

Lai testified that he was not familiar with the publication and that the post was not written by him. He believed it was authored by his “protégé,” Simon Lee (李兆富).

The defense also presented content from the Apple Daily Slack group, specifically the “Hong Kong Apple Online News Discussion” channel, on the same day. Ryan Law (羅偉光) mentioned the following points in a team message:

1. Expedite the completion of the outsourced app.
2. Find ways to retain and support outsourced staff, such as organizing events or sending books.
3. Strengthen China and Taiwan news coverage, potentially inviting Sang Pu to independently host a program.
4. Trial live news broadcasts using ZOOM.
5. Record and edit the SEO workshop for staff reference.
6. Add information about second-hand properties in the UK, focusing on cities where Hong Kong people relocate.

When asked if a “lunchbox meeting” took place that day, Lai said he believed it did and that he received the key points. Asked if he recalled the discussion, Lai said he did not.

Regarding the suggestion to “strengthen China and Taiwan news coverage by potentially inviting Sang Pu to independently host a program,” Lai agreed it was likely discussed, as it was included in the key points. He noted that Sang Pu advocated for “Hong Kong independence,” and thus Apple Daily would not use his content, attributing Ryan Law’s suggestion to an oversight.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked why Lai, being present at the meeting, did not voice opposition. Lai responded that he had overlooked it as well. When asked by the defense how the suggestion was handled, Lai said it was ultimately not implemented. When asked why, Lai suggested it might have been stopped by Cheung Kim-hung.

Lai added that Sang Pu’s program focused entirely on China and Taiwan. He explained, “And that’s why we overlooked it. Because, you know, that’s nothing to do with Hong Kong independence.”

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked, “But Hong Kong is part of China?” Lai agreed but clarified that it was not about “Hong Kong independence,” reiterating that Sang Pu advocated for independence. Toh noted she was not arguing but merely seeking clarity about the oversight. Lai repeated that the program was unrelated to “Hong Kong independence.”

Toh further asked, “But reports on China would include Hong Kong?” Lai disagreed, explaining that Apple Daily had separate sections: a China section and a local Hong Kong section.

The defense asked whether the term “Mainland” appeared in the context, noting only the term “China.” Lai clarified that the newspaper categorized news into China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong sections.

When asked under which section Macau news would fall, Lai said it would be under the China section.

10:30 Jimmy Lai: Unconcerned Whether China Is His Own Enemy

The defense presented a transcript of the “Live Chat With Jimmy Lai” program from October 1, 2020. Guests included Mark Clifford, an independent non-executive director of Next Digital, and Michael Auslin, a researcher at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.

The defense asked whether Michael Auslin was Lai’s personal friend. Lai replied that he was not and noted that Auslin was likely introduced to him by Mark Clifford, as he had never met or known him before.

Regarding Lai’s statement in the program that Europe was aligning with U.S. policies because individual countries alone could not influence China’s behavior, the defense asked if Lai was advocating for European countries to join the U.S. in countering China. Lai stated he was merely stating a fact.

The defense referenced Lai’s remarks in the program:
“Woke up the free country from the complacent, the whole policies was in the complacent…but all of a sudden they realize there’s enemy, and that enemy energized the whole west to restudy and to recheck, what they have gone wrong. I think this is very healthy for the west.”

The defense asked who Lai referred to as the “enemy.” Lai responded that it was China. When asked what message he was trying to convey by describing China as the enemy of free countries, Lai said, “I would just state the facts about how the West is looking at China”

The defense then asked if Lai considered China his enemy. Lai countered by asking, “My own enemy or Hong Kong’s enemy?” The defense clarified they were asking if China was Lai’s enemy. Lai replied that he personally did not focus on this but believed China was Hong Kong’s enemy.

When asked if his remarks about the “enemy” energizing the West to reassess their policies and how he thought this was healthy for the West were intended to advocate for a rethinking of Western policies on China, Lai denied it. He stated he was merely stating facts, observing that Western countries had already awakened.

The defense referred to Lai’s comment in the program:
“The leadership now Trump is taking, will definitely will also lead the west bloc to align together and to work together to create a new world, a new world is emerging just because of threat of CCP.”

The defense asked if Lai was advocating for Western countries to work together under Trump’s leadership. Lai denied this, stating that he was stating a fact—that Western countries were beginning to realize the lack of values and morality in politics, and that acting alone was ineffective in influencing China. Therefore, they needed to unite.

10:45 Lai Denies Advocating for Trump’s Hardline Stance on China

During the “Live Chat With Jimmy Lai” program, Lai stated: “I think in the future, even if Biden gets elected, he will also be idealizing the ways CCP will work, idealizing that world peace will work. Trump instead just deals with reality…he knows that to deal with China, we have to play hardball, and he has been doing this, and dealing with realities.”

The defense asked if Lai was advocating for Trump to take a hardline approach toward China. Lai denied this, explaining that Trump was already doing so and did not need his advocacy.

Lai also remarked: “Every country under the threat of CCP, has no choice, but to try to get US presence in Asia as much as possible, and now the European is awakened to the same point”

The defense asked what Lai meant by “every country under the threat of CCP has no choice.” Lai explained he was referring to Asian countries such as Japan, the Philippines, and South Korea. When asked why he described these countries as being under threat from the CCP, Lai responded:
“Because that’s the fact. They all had conflicts or confrontations with China one way or another. And they know that they could not deal with China, which is so strong. So they had to have the presence of the U.S. to protect them.”

The defense asked what Lai meant by “U.S. presence.” Lai said:
“That’s what the U.S. is having now in Asia,” citing examples such as U.S. troops stationed in Japan and the U.S. Seventh Fleet stationed in South Korea.

When asked if he advocated for a permanent U.S. military presence in Asia, Lai denied it, stating he was merely presenting facts and that this was the desire of Asian countries. He added that Europeans were also realizing a similar need.

The defense then asked how Lai knew this was the desire of Asian countries. Lai said this was frequently reported and was a fact.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked how Lai knew Europeans also had this need. Lai replied that he had learned it from reports, noting that Europe was following Trump’s policies.

11:05 Lai: Taiwan Is Not a Sovereign Country, Denies Advocating for Taiwan to Become a Country

In the “Live Chat With Jimmy Lai” program, Lai stated:
“What the US is doing to Taiwan is the right thing because first the sanction of technology to China, which the European country will have to follow because you cannot do without the American’s technology in Europe.”

The defense asked if Lai referred to “sanctions.” Lai confirmed, stating that these sanctions were already happening. When asked what he meant by saying “what the US is doing to Taiwan is the right thing,” Lai explained it referred to “upgrading the relationship with Taiwan,” as Taiwan’s chip technology is very important to the U.S.

When pressed further on what he meant by “the right thing,” Lai responded that it was the U.S. protecting technology and Taiwan. The defense asked if Lai was advocating for the U.S. to continue or increase sanctions on China. Lai denied this, stating he was merely stating facts and explaining why it was happening.

Regarding Lai’s remark in the program that “Taiwan will be a very unique country,” the defense asked what he meant by “country.” Lai clarified that Taiwan is not a sovereign country. When asked if he was advocating for Taiwan to become a country, Lai denied it, adding that if he were to make such an advocacy, he would have used the term “independence.”

The defense also referred to Lai’s comment in the program:
“I hope the Taiwanese government would be aggressive enough to follow the policy of the US because sometimes they tend to be very cautious.”

Lai explained in court that he believed there were differences between the U.S. and China, and Taiwan’s government often hesitated to follow U.S. policies for fear of offending China. When asked what he meant by “aggressive,” Lai said it meant “not being cautious.”

The defense asked if Lai was advocating for the Taiwanese government to adopt an “aggressive” policy toward China. Lai replied that he was merely expressing his hope that Taiwan’s government would be assertive enough to follow U.S. policies.

Regarding Lai’s use of the word “country” to describe Taiwan, Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping pointed out an apparent contradiction: Lai claimed he was not advocating for Taiwan to be a sovereign country, yet he mentioned in the program that “Taiwan is creating a country; the relationship with the US is becoming its future.”

Lai explained that he meant Taiwan was becoming a “stronger place” through its relationship with the U.S., but the Taiwanese government remained hesitant to follow U.S. policies. When Judge Toh asked if by “creating a country” Lai meant an independent nation, Lai clarified:
“Maybe that’s a better word to use: ‘place.’” He reiterated that he had already stated Taiwan is not a sovereign country.

11:18 Lai Reiterates He Did Not Advocate for a “Cold War” Between China and the West, Only Stated Facts

In the “Live Chat With Jimmy Lai” interview, Lai mentioned that the Chinese Communist Party was “not ready for war.” When questioned by the defense, Lai clarified that he was referring to a “hot war” (armed conflict), which he believed would not occur, but a “cold war” would.

The defense asked if Lai’s remarks were advocating for a “cold war” between China and the West. Lai denied this, emphasizing that he was merely stating the facts of what was happening at the time, particularly the phenomenon of “decoupling.” He further explained his statement during the interview:
“We cannot totally decouple China from the world.” Lai elaborated in court that foreign countries still had to address issues related to China because of its size and the many challenges it posed.

In the interview, Lai also said:
“I think that has got into the mind of the best in the world, and that idea of either now or never will be a very strong alliance for the western world to rely on.”

When asked in court, Lai explained that by “alliance,” he meant a coalition of countries joining forces to respond to China, representing a strong force. The defense asked if Lai was advocating for Western countries to unite against China. Lai denied this, stating that such behavior was already occurring, and he was merely describing the situation.

The defense further questioned Lai about his belief in the “free market.” Lai explained that he had benefited from this belief his entire life, noting that Hong Kong operated as a free market. He shared that he had spent 15 years reading the works of Friedrich Hayek, the 1974 Nobel Prize-winning economist.

When asked if reading Hayek’s works influenced his belief in the free market, Lai responded:
“I believe that knowledge does not determine experience, but experience determines knowledge. Because I lived through the free market in Hong Kong, I understood [Friedrich] Hayek’s ideas. I believe what I believe. But because of Hong Kong, I understood.”

12:13 Lai Confirms Writing Twitter Post About Cardinal Joseph Zen’s Visit to the Vatican

The defense presented two Twitter posts from October 3, 2020:

1. “Vatican bows to CCP, remains silent on China human right violation, allows churches demolished, and crosses taken down and believers suppressed. Vatican’s moral leadership confounds us.”
2. “But luckily we’ve @CardJosephZen who travelled all the way to Vatican despite his old age of 88 to express objections. Though he was rejected audience with the Pope, he did what he could and upheld the moral authority for HKers.”

The defense asked whether Lai wrote the two posts. Lai stated that he did not write the first one, as the wording was not typical of his style. However, he confirmed that he wrote the second post, explaining that Cardinal Joseph Zen had informed him during dinner about being denied an audience with the Pope. Lai believed Zen had not shared this information with anyone else, so he posted it on Twitter after learning about it.

When asked if he had informed Simon Lee (李兆富) about Cardinal Zen’s visit to the Vatican, Lai responded that Zen’s trip was already public news. The defense asked if Lai had sought Zen’s consent before posting the tweets. Lai admitted he had not.

The defense then questioned Lai’s purpose in posting the tweets. Lai said he wanted to highlight Zen’s trip to the Vatican to oppose the 2018 provisional Bishop Appointment Agreement between the Vatican and China, which was signed for two years and has since been renewed.

Two days later, Lai’s Twitter account posted another tweet:
“I know Yang and don’t want to say too much. But I agree US government does the right thing rejecting citizenship for #CCP members.”

Lai testified that this tweet was written by Simon Lee. He acknowledged knowing “Yang” mentioned in the tweet. When asked why the post said, “don’t want to say too much,” Lai explained that he personally knew Yang, who had been a Communist Party member, but he did not want to disclose too much due to privacy concerns. He affirmed his agreement with the U.S. decision to reject CCP members.

The court reviewed reports that democracy activist Yang Jianli had been denied U.S. citizenship for concealing his Communist Party membership on two occasions while applying for a visa and green card.

12:35 Lai Says Simon Lee Understands His Thinking

The defense presented a Twitter post from Jimmy Lai’s account on September 30, 2020, which retweeted a post by Benedict Rogers, head of Hong Kong Watch. Rogers’ post included a link to a National Catholic Register article mentioning Cardinal Joseph Zen’s appeal to the Pope: “Please send a faithful shepherd to Hong Kong.” Lai testified that he had not read the linked article and that the post was retweeted by Simon Lee.

Regarding the October 8 “Live Chat With Jimmy Lai” program, Lai, along with Mark Clifford, an independent non-executive director of Next Digital, and Cardinal Joseph Zen, discussed the next Hong Kong bishop and underground churches, including mentions of “Father Choi.” Lai explained that Father Choy was originally supposed to be appointed as Hong Kong’s bishop but faced opposition from many religious figures, including Cardinal Zen, due to his perceived pro-China stance. Based on records, “Father Choi” refers to Choy Wai-man.

The defense asked why Lai described Choy as pro-China. Lai explained that this was “common knowledge” in the Church, as Choy often instructed people on what not to do.

The defense referred to a September 29 Twitter post:
“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!”

The defense asked why Lai earlier claimed not to know why Choy Wai-man was described as “evil.” Lai explained that Choy sought to please (kiss up to) China at the expense of Church freedom. Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked if this was what Lai meant by “evil.” Lai agreed. When asked if he personally knew Choi, Lai said they were not very familiar but had met a few times.

The defense then addressed two Twitter posts from October 8:

1. “Jack Ma told the truth but he had to do so in a ‘fake’ persona in China, telling the truth is a crime. (1/2)”
2. “In Silicon Valley, however, ideas are shot down in hours; therefore, new ideas evolve every moment. Evolution of ideas stops when there is a fear of truth and the avoidance of criticism. This is why China does not have groundbreaking technology. (2/2)”

Lai stated that these posts were based on news reports and reflected his own views but were written by Simon Lee. The defense asked if Lai needed to provide input for the posts. Lai replied that it was unnecessary because Simon Lee understood his thinking.

Judge Toh noted that Simon Lee was not in Hong Kong at the time and asked how he knew Lai’s thoughts. Lai explained that ideas about Silicon Valley had been prevalent for a long time. Toh followed up, pointing out that the issue involving Jack Ma was more recent. Lai responded that it was based on the same ideas and principles.

The defense asked if Lai and Lee had communicated before Lee left Hong Kong. Lai reiterated that they frequently discussed technology investments, so Lee understood his thinking.

14:31 Judge Questions Whether Lai Encouraged U.S.-Taiwan Military Cooperation; Lai Denies

The defense noted that Jimmy Lai posted two tweets on October 8, 2020, and that two days later, Chan Tsz-wah was arrested by police for assisting an offense. Lai said he did not remember when he learned of Chan’s arrest but recalled that Martin Lee told him about it before he was remanded in December 2020. When asked if Martin Lee provided further details, Lai said no, only recalling that Lee informed him of the news.

The defense presented Lai’s October 11, 2020, column titled “Taiwan Should Also Thank the Party,” which included the following statement: “The U.S. blockade on high-tech and chips to China will also bind Western allies, Japan, Australia, and others, preventing the export of high-tech and chips to China. This will significantly impact China’s economic development and technological research. Products containing chips and foreign technological components will cease production, not only affecting economic development but also partially halting military and electronic surveillance development over its people.”

When asked if Lai was calling for sanctions or a blockade against China or Hong Kong, Lai denied it, stating he was merely analyzing the effects of sanctions on China. The defense further asked if Lai was encouraging other countries to antagonize China or Hong Kong. Lai denied this, reiterating that he was only analyzing the situation.

Regarding the column’s statement:
“Not declaring independence does not mean Taiwan cannot elevate its international status. Given the current situation, substantive U.S.-Taiwan diplomatic and close military cooperation, though informal, is as good as a sovereign nation’s relationship.”

The defense asked if Lai was inciting hatred against China or Hong Kong. Lai denied it, explaining that he was merely stating facts.

The defense also asked if Lai intended to incite Hong Kong residents to change Hong Kong’s political system or to act illegally. Lai responded, “These two questions have nothing to do with what’s being discussed here.”

The column further stated:
“Taiwan has risen onto the global stage of political and trade relations, achieving a leading position in Asian technological research. International technological elites are flocking to Taiwan, and international investments are pouring in, boosting Taiwan’s comprehensive economic and political development. All of this is thanks to Xi Jinping’s wolf warrior posture and his ambition to lead a ‘community of shared future for mankind,’ which has frightened the entire world. Taiwanese people shouldn’t hate Xi Jinping but should instead thank him.”

When asked if he was inciting readers to hate or resent Xi Jinping, Lai denied it, saying he was merely pointing out what Xi Jinping had done and the “great benefit to Taiwan.” When asked where he learned of the term “community of shared future for mankind,” Lai replied that it was frequently used by Xi Jinping.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked about the statement:
“Not declaring independence does not mean Taiwan cannot elevate its international status. Given the current situation, substantive U.S.-Taiwan diplomatic and close military cooperation, though informal, is as good as a sovereign nation’s relationship.”

She questioned whether Lai was encouraging closer U.S.-Taiwan military cooperation. Lai denied this, explaining that what he described was already happening and that he was merely stating facts.

The defense highlighted another part of the column:
“However, driven by Xi Jinping’s wolf warrior mindset, nationalist sentiment among the ’50-cent army’ has surged uncontrollably. Political circumstances are stronger than human will, and the possibility of a desperate dictator taking reckless and extreme actions remains. To maintain its dominance in Asia while avoiding war with China, the U.S. must adopt a clear and firm posture to protect Taiwan. The most effective way to prevent war is to appear always prepared for it.”

The defense asked who Lai referred to as the “dictator.” Lai responded, “Xi Jinping.” When asked if he was inciting hatred against Xi Jinping, Lai denied it, emphasizing that he was merely making a prediction.

The defense further pressed Lai, noting that he described Xi Jinping as a dictator. Lai replied: “He is a dictator.” When asked what basis he had for saying so, Lai explained:
“He is not elected. He is the one who controls the whole country by himself. What he says goes.”

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if Lai’s statement—“The most effective way to prevent war is to appear always prepared for it”—constituted advice. Lai denied this, explaining that he was merely outlining a strategy to prevent war and noted that the U.S. was already doing this by sending weapons to Taiwan and strengthening U.S.-Taiwan relations.

14:55 Lai Agrees He Called for International Intervention in the “12 Hongkongers” Incident

The defense presented a transcript from the October 15, 2020, episode of “Live Chat With Jimmy Lai,” featuring guests Mark Clifford and former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. In the program, Lai asked Wolfowitz: “Do you think America’s learned the lessons of the Korean episode, and they will be willing to show military might, to stop China?”

The defense asked if Lai was requesting Wolfowitz to take actions antagonistic to China. Lai denied this, explaining that, as in his earlier article, “The most effective way to avoid war is to appear always prepared for war,” the two statements shared the same rationale. When asked if “they” in the question referred to the United States, Lai agreed.

The defense inquired about Lai’s purpose in asking Wolfowitz this question. Lai explained that he was drawing an analogy to the lessons of the Korean War, asking whether being prepared for war could prevent war with China. Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping questioned if the lessons of the Korean War were relevant to military preparedness. Lai argued that the U.S. was unprepared for war at the time, which led to the Korean War, and that Americans learned the importance of building strong military capabilities to deter further conflicts with China.

Referring to Lai’s statement during the program:
“I think what you said in the article is very true: if the US doesn’t want a war with Beijing, the only way to do it is to threaten war, the only way to do it is to be ready for war so China will not be able to really stir up one.”

The defense asked if “threatening war” was the same as “appearing always prepared for war.” Lai agreed.

Regarding Lai’s statement in the program that Taiwan’s chip technology was crucial and effective in countering China, the defense asked if Lai was advocating for the U.S. to continue technological sanctions to maintain Taiwan’s status. Lai denied this, stating he was merely describing what was happening and acknowledging that “it is indeed very effective.”

The defense also highlighted Lai’s remarks:
“They know that the military supremacy of the US is so much further than the Chinese. So, you know, a war definitely they’re not gonna win. They’re gonna lose, they can only make trouble, they can only create death or disasters for Taiwanese people.”

When asked who “they” referred to, Lai said it was the CCP. He believed the CCP had no chance of winning such a war and acknowledged that if a war did occur, it would cause death and disaster for Taiwan. The defense asked if Lai believed war would not happen. Lai affirmed this but added that even if war occurred, the CCP would still have no chance of winning. When asked if he was advocating for war, Lai denied it.

On Lai’s appeal during the program for international attention to the “12 Hongkongers” case, he stated that the only way to save them was through international concern. The defense asked if Lai was requesting international intervention in the matter. Lai agreed, saying he hoped the international community would speak out.

When pressed further, Lai acknowledged, “In a way, yes,” that he had called for international intervention. Asked to clarify, Lai said that if the international community demanded China release them, that would count as intervening in China’s affairs. The defense asked how such calls should be made. Lai suggested urging politicians and governments to speak out through any means.

The defense asked if Lai was aware at the time that one of the “12 Hongkongers” was Andy Li, a co-defendant in the same case. Lai responded that he learned about Andy Li from newspapers. The defense pointed out that Lai was arrested twice in August 2020—on the 10th and the 23rd—and asked when he became aware of Andy Li. Lai said he believed it was during his first arrest.

The defense noted that Lai was released on August 12 and learned about Andy Li’s arrest from the news. Lai agreed, stating that he saw Li’s name in the reports but did not know the details. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if anyone had informed Lai about Andy Li’s situation at the time. Lai said no.

16:00 Lai: Values and Morality Are More Effective Than Other Weapons in Changing China

During the program, Lai said, “Trump’s approach to dealing with China is indeed very tough, and it’s the right way.” The defense asked if Lai was advocating for the U.S. to take a tough stance against China. Lai denied this, stating that he was merely describing a fact—what Trump was already doing. When asked what he meant by “the right way,” Lai explained that it referred to an effective method of changing China.

Regarding Lai’s statement that “Values and morality entering politics will be the strongest weapon the world has against the CCP,” the defense asked if Lai was advocating for the world to adopt a hostile stance toward the CCP. Lai responded that values and morality would not lead to hostility. When asked why he used the terms “values and morality,” Lai explained that these could influence people and bring about change in China more effectively than any other weapon.

The defense presented messages from October 16, 2020, in the “English News” group where Cheung Kim-hung shared:

// Highlights of Taiwan Apple’s exclusive reports today:

1. [Exclusive] Hunter Biden’s Visit to Taiwan: Mysterious Facilitator Revealed—Secret Meeting with Financial Elite, Wu Dun-yi’s Daughter Represents Her Father
2. [Exclusive Investigation 2] Ties to Former Legislator Hsieh Kuo-liang—Digging Into Hunter Biden’s Facilitator, Lin Chun-liang
3. [Exclusive Investigation 3] Direct Links to CCP Top Leadership—Lin Chun-liang Helps Hunter Biden Attract Chinese Capital
4. [Exclusive Investigation 4] Yuan Jian-sheng Takes the Train to Confront Biden on Diplomacy—1983 National Archives Letter from Biden
5. [Exclusive Investigation 5] From Deng Xiaoping to Xi Jinping—Biden Father and Son Mocked as “China Cheerleaders” //

The defense asked why Cheung shared these reports in the group. Lai said he could not recall.

On the same day, Chan Pui-man posted key points from a “lunchbox meeting” in the Slack “Hong Kong Apple Paper Discussion” group, noting: “Mr. Lai once again vetoed the double-page spread.” When asked what the spread referred to, Lai said he could not recall but believed the veto was true, as it was recorded in the key points.

Another key point noted: “News live broadcasts will add headline news (Tsang Chi-ho, Wong He), commentary (e.g., Sang Pu, Lo Fung), Lennon Wall (ads). Chan Pui-man is concerned this will harm the image of serious journalism, but Mr. Lai said things are too dull now and need to be livelier.”

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked what Lai meant by “livelier.” Lai explained that presenting only expert opinions was very dull, so he wanted the content rewritten to be more engaging.

The defense asked whose opinion ultimately prevailed—Lai’s or Chan’s. Lai said it was Chan’s, as she made the decisions.

Regarding the meeting notes mentioning adding Sang Pu’s commentary, the defense noted that Lai previously stated Sang Pu advocated for Hong Kong independence. Lai said he was unsure why Sang Pu was brought up but believed it was ultimately not implemented. When asked why Sang Pu was mentioned, Lai suggested it might have been to write on specific topics.

The defense asked how Apple Daily ensured Sang Pu would not mention Hong Kong independence. Lai said he did not know and was only speculating, adding that Cheung Kim-hung had suggested not inviting Sang Pu, so Lai did not extend an invitation.

When asked if Lai personally knew Sang Pu, Lai said he had hosted Sang Pu and other writers for lunch at his residence.

The Witness