The trial of Jimmy Lai, founder of Next Digital, on charges of “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces” and other offenses resumed Wednesday at West Kowloon Magistrates’ Court, which is temporarily serving as the High Court. The hearing marked the 116th day of the proceedings and Lai’s 24th day testifying.

The defense referenced a statement Lai made during a past interview, in which he said: “When we sense that freedom and the rule of law are about to be taken away, we all go out to protest.” He added that if 2 million people protested, it would frighten the authorities and lead to the enactment of the National Security Law. In court, Lai denied inciting protests, claiming he was merely stating facts. He reiterated his opposition to violence.

When asked if he was aware that the National Security Law includes provisions to safeguard the rule of law and freedom, Lai laughed and said he did not know how to respond. He added, “If there are political prisoners here, I don’t believe there is rule of law or freedom.” Lai also noted that he was arrested after the National Security Law was enacted.

Judge Esther Toh questioned Lai, saying: “You claim to be a political prisoner. Do you not understand that you were arrested because of criminal charges? You were not arrested for political reasons but for allegedly violating Hong Kong’s criminal laws.” Lai replied: “OK, OK, OK, I understand.”

The case is being heard by High Court judges designated under the National Security Law: Esther Toh, Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios, and Alex Lee. The prosecution team includes Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Anthony Chau, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Ivan Cheung, and Senior Public Prosecutor Crystal Chan. Lai’s defense team consists of Senior Counsel Robert Pang, barrister Steven Kwan, and New Zealand Queen’s Counsel Marc Corlett, who is qualified to practice in Hong Kong.

Detailed Transcription

16:00 Lai Acknowledges Posting About “Hong Kong Being Seriously Ill,” Says It Refers to Loss of Freedom

The defense presented a tweet posted on November 24, 2020, from Lai’s account, which stated:
 “Yes, HK is seriously ill. Our strong will to persist is the only cure. We can’t be afraid. We must fight on!” The tweet included a link to an Apple Daily report about the arrest of online host “Giggs” Wan Yiu-sing for alleged money laundering and other charges.

Lai admitted to writing the tweet and acknowledged being aware that Wan Yiu-sing had been arrested for those charges. When asked what message he intended to convey by stating “Hong Kong is seriously ill,” Lai explained in court that he believed Hong Kong was gravely ill due to the loss of freedom. Regarding the phrases “persist” and “fight on” in the tweet, Lai said they reflected wishful thinking, as persistence and fighting were no longer possible.

The defense then asked what message readers might take from Lai’s tweet. Lai responded that he hoped to convey a sense of hope.

Another tweet from the same day read:
 “Hope that Trump has raised the bar of US-Taiwan relationship: Biden can’t lower given the resentment of American people against China after the pandemic. The world has changed. Appeasement is defeatism.”

Lai stated that this tweet was written by Simon Lee, and they had not discussed it beforehand.

On the same day, another tweet stated:
 “Who are they kidding? Any confession, admission of guilt, or any statements claimed to be made by the #HK12 to persuade others to conform, are deemed as fabricated or made under duress. No one can trust #CCP.” The tweet included an Apple Daily report with a photo of Andy Li.

Lai explained that this tweet was also written by Simon Lee. When asked if Lai was aware in November that Andy Li, who was arrested on August 10 (the same day as Lai’s first arrest), had been charged with collusion under the National Security Law, Lai said he was not aware.

Another tweet from the same day stated:
 “Yes, it’ll be dangerous. But let us not be afraid and fight on! The greater the danger, the more effective we can arouse the world’s attention. The world’s attention is our saving grace.” This tweet included a link to an Apple Daily report about the June 4 vigil.

The defense noted that Lai had been arrested for inciting participation in unauthorized assemblies and asked what Lai meant by “dangerous” in this tweet. Lai responded that demonstrations or participating in the June 4 vigil were dangerous. He clarified that “don’t be afraid, fight on” meant encouraging people not to be afraid and to “do what you like to do. So if you like to go on the vigil, go!”

The defense pointed out that there were no June 4 vigils in November. Lai replied that small-scale protests were still taking place at the time. When asked if Lai was encouraging others to put themselves in danger, Lai said he was only encouraging people not to be afraid, as greater danger could lead to greater effectiveness. The defense asked if Lai was encouraging others to break the law, which he denied.

Finally, the defense referenced three additional Live Chat episodes, an interview with Ben Rogers, and an op-ed in the“Success and Failure with a Laugh” column for further questioning.

15:53 Lai Acknowledges Posting Praise for the Young Generation Not Giving Up the Fight

The defense presented a series of Jimmy Lai’s tweets from November 2020. Among them were two tweets posted on November 20:

1. “When prosecutors openly and freely ‘shop’ for the ‘special’ judge to hear a case, there is no more judicial independence. Lady Justice will no longer be blindfolded but eagle-eyed.”
   
   
2. “After taking down the judiciary, the next to go down will be the media, and then social media. HK will suffocate quietly and peacefully.”
   
   

On November 24, Lai’s account posted:
 “Crowdfunding is the lifeline that keeps the resistance movement going. The police trumps up charges to stop it. Intimidation, however, will not work with so many brave and good people there to help.”

Another tweet from the same day stated:
 “In China, you can’t worship your God. If you offend the CCP, no matter where you are, they might nab and hijack you to China for trial. The world should wake up to the CCP they’re facing.”

Lai claimed all the above tweets were written by Simon Lee. The defense noted that the November 24 tweet used the term “Trump up,” the same phrase Lai used during the Live Chat program, and asked if Lai and Lee had discussed this. Lai said they had not. Judge Esther Toh asked if this was a coincidence, to which Lai replied that it was. Lai also stated that the tweet about being “nabbed and hijacked to China for trial” was incorrect.

Regarding another tweet from the same day, Lai admitted it was written by him:
 “Young generation of fighters will not give up their fight, even threatened by arbitrary persecution. The greater the intimidation, the greater is their determination. Youth is glorious!”

Lai explained that this tweet expressed his thoughts on the younger generation but could not recall the specific news or the meaning of “arbitrary persecution.” He said the tweet merely reflected his admiration for young people.

15:32 Break

15:05 Lai: “I Have Enemies, but I Don’t Hate Them”

During the program, Lai stated:
 “The behavior that’s really offend the sense of decency of the people in the world. And I think they learn now, they wake up and they have the moral clarity and now they’re beginning to see the true face of CCP.”

The defense asked whose behavior Lai was referring to. Lai clarified that he was speaking about the CCP’s behavior, particularly its interactions with others, which go against the norms of the Western, free world. He added that China does not adhere to the core values that have been established for many years.

The defense questioned how, assuming Lai’s statement was accurate and China does not recognize global core values, this behavior “offends the sense of decency.” Lai explained that when people share the same values, their behavior is accepted by others who hold those values. However, if someone operates with different values or disregards established norms, it offends people.

The defense asked what Lai meant by “offend the sense of decency.” Lai responded that it refers to politeness and doing the right thing, which he believes the CCP has abandoned.

The defense then asked if Lai intended to incite hatred toward the CCP. Lai denied this, stating:
 “Honestly, I don’t hate. I have enemies, but I don’t hate them. I am incapable of hating.”

The defense further inquired why the CCP was his enemy. Lai replied:
 “I let the court be the judge.”

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked who Lai’s enemies were. Lai responded: “Whatever,” adding that he also has personal enemies.

When asked if the CCP was his enemy, Lai acknowledged that it could be considered an enemy, but reiterated that he does not hate it. The defense questioned why he considered the CCP an enemy. Lai explained that the CCP threatens his freedom.

Referring to Lai’s program remark:
 “Although I know that I will get into big trouble by talking to you, by talking to a lot of people, because this is a collusion with foreigners, this is a big crime here. But I must hold on and uphold what we have been doing because so many people are looking up to me.”

The defense asked why speaking with an Israeli person might be considered collusion with foreign forces. Lai responded that even if the conversation did not involve anything related to collusion, it could still be labeled as such.

The defense questioned why speaking with foreigners would be considered a violation of the National Security Law. Lai replied:
 “It can be understood that way.”

Judge Esther Toh asked if Natan Sharansky represented foreign forces. Lai described him as a former deputy prime minister, an influential figure in Israel who still holds significant sway.

The defense asked what Lai meant by “even if this could be seen as collusion, I will continue doing what I’m doing.” Lai explained that while speaking with foreigners could be perceived as collusion, he felt it was necessary to continue despite the risks to bring international attention to Hong Kong.

14:45 Defense Questions “Political Pressure”; Lai: “Speak or act wrongly, and you’ll be arrested”

The defense presented a transcript from the November 20, 2020 episode of Live Chat with Jimmy Lai, which featured Mark Clifford and former Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Natan Sharansky as guests. During the program, Lai stated:
 “People had hope and still hoping but the hope is dashed or whatever hope we have will be dashed, because under such a high-pressure persecution and clamp down on our freedom and rule of law.”

The defense asked Lai what he meant by “persecution.” Lai responded that it referred to political pressure. When asked what kind of political pressure, Lai explained, “If you speak or act wrongly, you’ll be arrested.”

The defense then asked what Lai meant by “wrong.” Lai elaborated:
 “Because we used to have the freedom of speech, so what we said was just out of our mind or our heart. Now you just cannot do it now, not anymore, and I think this is a political persecution.”

The defense asked what Lai meant by “clamp down on our freedom and rule of law.” Lai said it referred to the effects of the National Security Law (NSL). The defense questioned whether Lai intended to incite hatred toward the central or Hong Kong governments. Lai denied this, stating he was merely expressing his feelings at the time.

The defense then asked if Lai intended to unlawfully alter Hong Kong’s political status. Lai responded:
 “If I thought I could achieve that, I would be too naïve,” adding that protests were no longer allowed, nor could people even express disagreement with the government.

Regarding Lai’s statement on the program, “The more dangerous I am, the more effective I can bring the attention of the outside world’s people to Hong Kong,” the defense asked what he meant by “dangerous.” Lai explained that it referred to the risk of imprisonment. When asked if this was because of his arrest in August, Lai replied it was due to the National Security Law.

The defense asked why the NSL would cause Lai’s imprisonment. Lai answered, “I am in prison now.” When reminded that the interview took place in November 2020, Lai said he had been certain at the time that he would be imprisoned and believed others would also face imprisonment under the NSL.

Asked to explain why, Lai said it was because he was outspoken, participated in protests, and was often at the forefront of demonstrations.

The defense further questioned whether Lai intended to incite hatred or dissatisfaction toward the central or Hong Kong governments. Lai denied this, explaining he was simply describing his danger and hoping that it would draw attention to himself and, consequently, to Hong Kong.

When asked how his personal danger related to the outside world’s attention on Hong Kong, Lai stated that many people knew him, and if they were aware of his situation, they would be concerned. He added that if he were imprisoned, it would be reported, which would bring attention to Hong Kong.

The defense then asked if Lai intended to break the law to attract attention to Hong Kong. Lai responded that even if he broke the law, it would not violate the National Security Law. When asked if he deliberately committed crimes to draw attention to Hong Kong, Lai said he was merely describing the situation at the time.

14:34 Defense Questions Meaning of “International Front”; Lai: “International Support”

During the audience Q&A segment of the November 19 “Live Chat,” a viewer asked Lai:
 “To understand better, could you share how we can support you on the international front? Everyone, keep up the effort. Go Hong Kong!”

Lai responded:
 “I think international support is very important because right now in Hong Kong, we really can’t march in protests. Even in the Legislative Council, we no longer have a diversity of voices….”

The defense asked how Lai interpreted the viewer’s reference to the “international front.” Lai stated that he substituted the term “international support” for “international front” in his response. When asked if “international support” equates to “international front,” Lai agreed. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang pointed out that Lai referred to a “street front,” a “LegCo front,” and a “third front,” which was the “international front.” Lai acknowledged this.

The defense asked if Lai knew what the “international front” was about. Lai replied that he did not and had only mentioned it in the interview. When asked if he understood the concept of the “international front” at the time, Lai said he did not recall, but he understood “international support” as the same as “international front.” However, if “international front” were to be taken as a short-form concept, he claimed he was unfamiliar with it.

The defense also referred to Lai’s statement in the program about wanting more attention and for people to “speak out” for Hong Kong. When asked what he meant by “speak out,” Lai explained that he hoped more people would pay attention to Hong Kong, and if they did, they would speak out in support of Hong Kong.

Regarding his remark about feeling “suffocated,” Lai clarified that he was referring to “suffocation in silence,” meaning being unable to do or say anything.

12:28 Lunch

12:14 Program Suggests U.S. Should Engage with China, Lai Denies Advocating Hostility, Emphasizes Engagement to Reduce Confrontation

During the November 19 episode of “Live Chat,” Lai stated:
 “Our greatest oppressor is China. If the US deal with China effectively, we’ll be more safe. We’ll be more free and we’ll be able to keep our rule of law better.”

Lai explained that this remark expressed the pressure felt under the National Security Law, adding that if the U.S. effectively engaged with China, Hong Kong would become safer. When asked by the defense what he meant by “effective engagement,” Lai responded that it referred to anything beneficial to Hong Kong.

The defense further questioned whether Lai was advocating for hostile actions by the U.S. towards China. Lai denied this, emphasizing that engagement with China was intended to reduce confrontation.

The defense played a segment of the program where a viewer asked Lai:
 “To understand better, could you share how we can support you on the international front? Everyone, keep up the effort. Go Hong Kong!”

Lai responded:
 “I think international support is very important because right now in Hong Kong, we really can’t march in protests. Even in the Legislative Council, we no longer have a diversity of voices….”

The defense noted that there were translation inaccuracies in the Chinese-English interpretation and deferred to the court translator for clarification.

The defense also presented a November 19 tweet that Lai had reposted from Apple Daily:
 “The founder of Apple Daily newspaper, @JimmyLaiApple, had received the Faith and Freedom Award awarded by the Acton Institute today.”

Lai added in his retweet:
 “Thank you @robertsirico and the Acton Institute for this honor. Hong Kong people’s pursuit of freedom and virtues will only grow stronger and stronger.”

Lai clarified that this tweet was written by Simon Lee. When asked by Esther Toh whether he was aware of the award at the time, Lai confirmed that he was.

11:25 Break

11:10 Program Suggests Being in Danger Attracts More Attention, Lai: “Danger” Refers to Prosecution as “Persecution”

The defense referenced Jimmy Lai’s comments during the November 19 episode of “Live Chat,” where Lai said:
 “The more I’m in danger, the greater effect of me bringing attention to Hong Kong. … I’m definitely having a great time of my life. This is the best time of my life, maybe even better if I’m in jail.”

When asked by the defense what he meant by “danger,” Lai explained it referred to the danger of being prosecuted, which he called “persecution.” The defense then asked why Lai described it as “the best time of my life, maybe even better if I’m in jail.” Lai responded that it was because it could draw more public attention. When pressed on whether he intended to commit crimes to get himself imprisoned, Lai denied it, stating, “I am not crazy.”

Regarding Lai’s comment on the program, “For people like myself to really go out and talk and attract attention to Hong Kong,” the defense asked what he meant by “going out to talk and attract attention to Hong Kong.” Lai explained that it referred to participating in the “Live Chat” program to inform the international community about Hong Kong’s plight and garner support, which he believed was generally positive.

Lai also mentioned, “Like Pompeo says that Taiwan is never part of China. They say this it’s using Taiwan to raise up the bar of the rivalry. And I think and also people’s concept about China the American people will be also a constraint on how much Biden can get out from it. Politics is people’s sentiment. I hope it will be very effective to carry Biden to the way.”

In court, Lai explained that the U.S. was using Taiwan as a focal point to elevate the competitive stakes with China. He noted that Taiwan is a highly sensitive issue for China and that the U.S. was leveraging Taiwan’s status to raise the bar in their rivalry. Lai clarified this was his analysis and speculation, noting that former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s statement that “Taiwan is never part of China” was unprecedented. When asked if the U.S. was lying, Lai responded that whether Taiwan is part of China is a matter for historians to answer, not him.

On his statement, “I hope it will be very effective to carry Biden to the way,” Lai explained that due to the pandemic, there was significant resentment among Americans toward China, and this sentiment could guide the Biden administration’s actions. When asked if he advocated for hostile actions by the Biden administration against China, Lai denied this, emphasizing that politics always involves public sentiment.

Lai also remarked during the program:
 “Trump did not try to be multilateral, but unilateral. Trump depends on the threat of China to the western country, to the free country and for them to know that without the US they will have no leverage against China and therefore falls to edge to the policy of Trump. They are willing to join Trump because they need Trump. They need US as leverage.”

When asked if he supported “unilateralism,” Lai stated he did not but acknowledged it was an effective strategy employed by Trump. The defense further inquired whether Lai advocated for the U.S. to take hostile actions against China. Lai denied this, stating he was merely describing Trump’s unilateral approach, where other nations aligned with Trump because they could not counter China independently. When pressed on whether he encouraged Western countries to join the U.S. in hostile actions against China, Lai denied this, saying he was merely explaining that Western nations would ultimately align with Trump’s policies due to their inability to confront China alone.

11:00 Tweets Mentioning Illegal Crowdfunding Were Written by Simon Lee, Lai Claims He Only Realized It Was Illegal After Reading It Now

The defense presented a series of tweets from Jimmy Lai’s Twitter account in November 2020. On November 13, Lai had retweeted a post by Canada’s Ministry of Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship, which announced a new immigration plan offering work permits and expanded pathways to permanent residency to attract Hong Kong students and young people. Lai commented:
 “#CCP and Carrie Lam do not cherish #HongKong young people. Other countries see how valuable they are, welcome them, and do whatever it takes to attract them.”

Lai stated that this tweet was not authored by him but was likely written independently by his associate, Simon Lee.

On November 17, Lai’s Twitter account retweeted a post from the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, which quoted:
 “‘How Hong Kong develops its democracy in the future is completely within the sphere of the autonomy of Hong Kong. The central government will not interfere.’ – CCP in 1993. ‘How Hong Kong should govern itself is decided by Beijing.’ – CCP in 2020. Another empty promise.”

On the same day, Lai’s account retweeted a post by then-U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, stating:
 “Beijing has turned Hong Kong’s Legislative Council into another rubber-stamp parliament, just like the National People’s Congress. Beijing has crushed democracy in Hong Kong. #StandWithHongKong.”

Later that day, Lai’s Twitter account posted:
 “#CCP uses all the tricks it has to criminalize crowdfunding, which is the lifeline of HK’s resistance movement,”
 with a link to an Apple Daily report.

Lai claimed that all three of these tweets were either written or shared by Simon Lee, as he himself did not know how to retweet. Regarding the crowdfunding tweet, Lai said he had not seen it before and only now realized that crowdfunding had been deemed illegal. When Judge Esther Toh asked if Lai’s phone could access relevant information despite Simon Lee managing his Twitter, Lai agreed.

Regarding another tweet on the same day, which stated:
 “I don’t believe Facebook is pro-CCP. They’re just so big and arrogant that they are taking the laws into their hands. Power does corrupt,”

Lai confirmed that he had authored this tweet, explaining that it reflected his frustration with Facebook’s refusal to acknowledge human rights documents, which he considered arrogant.

On the same day, another tweet from Lai’s account stated:
 “China is facing unprecedented external hostility, economic crisis, and internal political friction. Instead of addressing the root of the problems, Xi is focusing on brainwashing. He’s dreaming a China dream while the country is falling into pitfalls,”
 and included a link to an Apple Daily report.

Lai stated that he believed this tweet was written by Simon Lee, as he did not read Apple Daily online reports himself.

10:40 Lai: “If There Are Political Prisoners, I Don’t Believe in Rule of Law or Freedom”

The defense played the November 13, 2020 episode of “Live Chat with Jimmy Lai,” featuring Mark Clifford, former editor-in-chief of South China Morning Post, and Chris Patten, the last governor of Hong Kong. The defense asked if the guests were either Lai’s friends or introduced by his assistant Mark Simon, and whether Lai discussed the interview with Mark Clifford beforehand. Lai denied having any prior discussion.

When asked if there had been discussions about documents, the topics to be covered, or what Mark Clifford would ask, Lai denied all, stating he never knew the program’s content in advance but was aware of the guests’ identities. He emphasized that all discussions on the show were spontaneous. The defense asked how Lai ensured that guests would not use the platform to commit offenses under Hong Kong law. Lai said he never considered such a possibility.

During the program, Lai remarked:
 “That’s why when we sense that our freedom and rule of law were about to be taken away, we all rose up and fight in the street. If 2 million people went out and all that made them very scared and that’s why they have to make their National Security Law, they have to now clamp down on us. They now intimidate every rank of the society.”

The defense asked if Lai was inciting people to protest. Lai denied this, stating he was merely describing facts.

Lai further stated in the program:
 “But I’m afraid we have to go on and fight for the rule of law and the freedom. But I don’t think we still have the space to do that because the National Security Law has totally intimidated people here that we can’t have any demonstration.”

The defense asked what Lai meant by “fight.” Lai explained it was a metaphor for striving for freedom through protests, likening it to fighting for survival when starving. When asked if he was referring to violence, Lai denied it, reiterating his consistent opposition to violence.

The defense pointed out that Articles 4 and 5 of the National Security Law protect rule of law and freedom. Asked if he was aware of these provisions, Lai laughed and said:
 “I don’t know how to answer you. If there’s a political prisoner, I don’t believe there’s a rule of law, I don’t believe there’s freedom.”

The defense then questioned whether there were political prisoners in mid-November 2020. Lai responded that after the National Security Law, “I am sure there will be, and I was already arrested.”

Judge Esther Toh remarked:
 “You say you are a political prisoner. Do you not understand that you were arrested because of criminal charges? You weren’t arrested for political reasons but for allegedly violating Hong Kong’s criminal laws.”
Lai replied, “OK, OK, OK, I understand.”

During the program, Lai also stated:
 “I think what the west should do is to emulate the CCP. Just embed our value and human right in everything we do with China. That is a precondition.”

The defense asked if Lai was advocating for Western countries to take hostile actions against China. Lai denied this, describing the West’s approach as “gentle” rather than hostile or aggressive, stating:
 “It’s just embedding values into everything we do with China.”

The defense asked if China would accept Western values. Lai replied it would not. When pressed on whether this refusal meant he was advocating for hostile actions against China, Lai said no, adding:
 “Regardless, we deal with each other with our embedded values in ourselves anyway.”

10:18 Lai Admits Inappropriate Use of the Term “Trump Up,” Unaware It Means “Fabricate”

During the audience Q&A segment of the program, someone asked, “How can ordinary citizens support Apple Daily?” Lai responded that Apple Daily was facing financial difficulties and that the best way to support the newspaper was by subscribing. He also expressed gratitude for the public’s support. Lai further mentioned that the pro-democracy camp was involved in many lawsuits, stating, “This government arrests them for everything, so they need a lot of legal fees. Supporting them through crowdfunding to help with their lawsuits is the first step to supporting them.”

Lai then added in English:
 “They need a lot of money to fight the legal charge that they have now because the government just arrests them left and right. Trumping up all the charges…”

The defense asked Lai what he meant by “trumping up the charges.” Lai explained that he was referring to charges that were not commonly used in the past but were now being applied.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked what exactly he meant. Lai responded that charges or disqualifications that were previously unused were now being employed. When asked what specific charges he was referring to, Lai said it was too long ago to recall, but he suggested it might include sedition charges.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked, “So, you believe charges that were not used for prosecution in the past are now being used?” Lai agreed. The defense then asked if Lai was inciting hatred. Lai denied this, stating he was merely describing the situation at the time.

Judge Remedios asked if Lai understood what “trumping up” meant. Lai said he thought it meant “raising up” (提出) and was referring to charges that were previously unused but are now being applied.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping clarified that “trumping up” means “fabricate.” Lai responded that this was not his intended meaning. Judge Toh then asked if Lai had used the term incorrectly, and Lai agreed.

The defense asked if the charges Lai referred to included those under the National Security Law, which had already come into effect at the time. Lai said they did not include charges under the National Security Law.

10:08 Program Advocates for Japan-Taiwan Military Cooperation, Lai: Taiwan Needs Protection

The defense presented a transcript from the November 12, 2020 program “Live Chat With Jimmy Lai,” in which Lai stated:
 “I think that’s an opportunity for Japan to have a closer alliance with Taiwan strategically and militarily.”

The defense asked Lai whether he was advocating for Japan and Taiwan to unite in hostile activities against China. Lai responded that he was not, adding that his statement was about Taiwan needing protection. The defense then asked, “But didn’t you mention ‘military cooperation’?” Lai explained that military alliances are meant to provide regional protection. When asked why Taiwan needs protection, Lai stated it is due to military threats from China.

Lai further remarked in the program:
 “They will have to use different strategy and I think this is very important, they have to be more aggressive. They have to take more risks because for the world to change we can’t just engage China or contain China.”

Lai clarified that these remarks referred to the U.S. Biden administration. The defense questioned, “But at that time, Biden had not yet taken office?” Lai replied that Biden was about to assume office.

When asked what “a more aggressive strategy” entails, Lai explained that since the world had changed, the U.S. needed to actively adjust its strategy towards China. He added that changing strategies involves taking greater risks, as any political transformation carries significant risks. However, Lai emphasized that the Biden administration needed to adopt a proactive approach to adapt to the new global landscape.

10:05 Court in Session

16:25 Court Adjourns

The Witness