The trial of Apple Daily founder Jimmy Lai on charges including “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces” continued Thursday, Dec. 9, at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts, which is serving as a temporary High Court. Thursday marked the 117th day of the trial and Lai’s 25th day of testimony.

Under questioning by Judge Esther Toh, Lai expressed concerns that the Biden administration might overturn former President Donald Trump’s China policies but clarified he was referring to “tough” policies, not “anti-China” policies.

Judge Toh asked Lai why he believed Trump’s policies benefited Hong Kong. Lai explained that Trump had committed to addressing Hong Kong-related issues with China, which he believed could pressure authorities to reconsider the National Security Law. When Judge Toh questioned how that could be effective since the law was already in place, Lai said he hoped its impact could still be mitigated, adding, “When you’re desperate, you hope.”

The case is being heard by High Court-designated National Security Law judges Esther Toh, Susana D’Almada Remedios, and Alex Lee. 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 is led by senior counsel Robert Pang Yiu-hung, barrister Steven Kwan, and New Zealand Queen’s Counsel Marc Corlett, who is qualified to practice in Hong Kong.

Detailed Transcription

16:30 Court Adjourns

16:08 Lai Says China’s Embargo on Australia Exhibits “Wolf-Warrior” Attitude; Judge Questions Compliance with International Rules

During the program, Lai remarked:
“I think that the wolf-warrior attitude which they are showing to the Australian Government, embargoing their wine, embargoing the exports of things.”

Judge Esther Toh asked if such embargoes were inconsistent with international trade rules. Lai responded by noting that the embargo was due to Australia’s support for Hong Kong. Judge Toh clarified that her question was not about Australia’s political stance but whether the embargo violated international rules.

Lai replied: “If you put it that way, it’s hard for me to articulate my perspective. Australia is just an example, and discussing it like this is meaningless.”

Judge Toh pressed further, asking whether Lai thought China’s embargoes on other countries were inappropriate. Lai insisted that the context needed to be explained for any meaningful discussion, emphasizing that Australia faced the embargo for politically supporting Hong Kong.

Judge Toh sought clarity on what Lai meant by “international trade rules.” Lai responded that some embargoes were reasonable and others were not.

When Judge Toh asked who decides whether an embargo is reasonable and noted that rules should apply universally rather than being discretionary, Lai said: “I am referring to ‘pure trade.’ This should not be influenced by political actions.”

Judge Toh replied: “That’s precisely my point.”

Judge Susana D’Almada Remedios asked if Lai was saying Australia faced the embargo because it supported Hong Kong. Lai affirmed this, adding that Australia also supported Xinjiang and noted that this information was factual and verifiable.

The case will resume on Monday, January 13, in the afternoon. In the morning, Lai will review records from the Slack communication platform in the presence of representatives from both the prosecution and defense, as well as the court. Further questions from the defense will follow in the afternoon.

15:50 Defense: Prosecution Claims Calling Xi Jinping “Mao Zedong 2.0” Is Incitement; Lai: Does the Prosecution Find Mao Detestable?

The defense questioned Lai about his statements during the December 1 Live Chat episode, featuring Dan Blumenthal, Director of Asian Studies at the American Enterprise Institute. In the program, Lai referred to Xi Jinping as the “most absolute dictator.” 

The defense asked if this statement incited hatred toward the central government. Lai denied this, explaining that he was merely describing how Xi became an absolute dictator, emphasizing China’s significant economic power and technological advancements.

The defense noted that Lai also said during the interview that Xi would “make big mistakes,” and others would oppose him. They asked if this statement incited hatred toward the central government. Lai again denied the accusation.

Lai described Xi Jinping as “Mao Zedong 2.0” during the program, stating: “I think the West should be alert to this Mao Zedong No.2.”

The defense asked if calling Xi “Mao Zedong 2.0” was an attempt to incite hatred toward the central government. Lai said:
“If calling someone Mao Zedong means inciting hatred, doesn’t that mean Mao Zedong is the most detestable person?”

The defense noted that this was the prosecution’s assertion. Lai said again:
“If describing Xi Jinping as ‘Mao Zedong 2.0’ is considered incitement, does the prosecution also think Mao Zedong is the most detestable person?”

The defense pressed for a direct answer, and Lai maintained that it was not incitement to hatred.

During the program, Lai also said:
“This is something the world should be alert to. I think the pressure to stop China from progressing its infiltration, asserting its values and behaviors to change the rules of the international order—all of that—it’s a critical time to stop China from progressing along this trajectory, because the world will not have peace.”

When asked if this statement incited hatred, Lai denied it, saying that the world was already opposed to China and the statement reflected existing global pressure on China.

Lai also mentioned during the program that Australia was being bullied by China. In court, Lai clarified that he was referring to bullying by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and denied inciting hatred. He explained that his statement merely reflected the situation at the time, referencing China’s trade embargo against Australia.

When asked if he was advocating for Western countries to unite and take hostile actions against China, Lai denied this. He stated that if the goal is to integrate China into the international system, Western countries should make every effort to help China integrate into that system.

15:15 Twitter Post on Carrie Lam’s Sanctions Written by Simon Lee; Lai Admits Oversight

The defense presented a December 1, 2020, Twitter post from Lai’s account:
“The Biden administration should know that by making those abetting CCP repression personally accountable, the measures can frustrate their morale of evil doing, thus will be effective even if the measures may seem inconveniences in small ways.”

The post included a link to an Apple Daily news article about then-Chief Executive Carrie Lam being unable to use banking services due to U.S. sanctions, forcing her to receive her salary in cash, resulting in piles of cash at her home.

The defense stated that the post was written by Lai’s apprentice, Simon Lee. When asked if the post conveyed the message that the sanctions were effective, Lai replied that he personally did not think the sanctions were effective, nor did he believe others considered them effective. When asked about Li’s intent, Lai said he could not speculate on it but maintained that he did not view the outcome as effective.

Judge Esther Toh asked if Lai believed Li’s statement that the measures “could make those abetting CCP repression personally accountable.” Lai reiterated that he did not think the sanctions were effective. When the defense asked if Lai agreed with the statement that the measures “could frustrate their morale of evil doing,” Lai said he agreed with this sentiment but still did not find the sanctions effective.

The defense noted that Lai had previously instructed Lee not to mention sanctions in posts. Lai confirmed this and said he had not withdrawn the directive. When asked if Lai had instructed Lee to write posts about sanctions, he denied it, describing the post as an oversight. He believed Lee thought that Carrie Lam’s sanctions had occurred before the National Security Law was enacted and therefore considered the topic harmless.

Judge Toh pointed out that the post was written in December, after the National Security Law had come into effect. Lai acknowledged this and reiterated that it was an oversight, as Lee assumed the sanctions predated the law.

The defense asked if Lai was aware of the post. Lai stated he had not read it, and even if he had, he likely would not have clicked on the article link. When asked if Lai would have understood the post’s content if he had read it, Lai replied that he would but admitted he might have overlooked the link, as he assumed the sanctions mentioned predated the National Security Law.

When asked if Lai had discussed the post’s content with Li, he said no, emphasizing that regardless of whether he found the sanctions effective, he did not consider the topic significant.

14:50 Lai: Does Not Support the “Yellow Economic Circle” but Recognizes Its Role in Supporting the Freedom Movement

During the interview, Lai referred to a statement by Paul Wolfowitz:
“Paul Wolfowitz who recommended this Twitter account and strongly endorsed it, said that if you have to prevent a war, you must threaten war. So the U.S. must threaten war to stop China from daring to have a war in Taiwan.”

When asked if Lai was advocating for the U.S. to threaten war against China, Lai denied this, stating that he was merely quoting Wolfowitz and describing what the U.S. was doing at the time.

Regarding Lai’s comment:
“The EU countries don’t care much about Taiwan, except for Japan, North Korea, South Korea, and India. They are so close to China that they care, but they cannot do anything. So, I think multilateralism is bad for Taiwan as it is now.”

The defense asked if Lai was advocating for the U.S. to adopt unilateralism. Lai clarified that he was merely pointing out the effectiveness of Trump’s approach and agreed that multilateralism was not beneficial for Taiwan. When asked if he was advocating for hostile actions by the U.S. against China, Lai denied this, explaining that he used Trump as an example to highlight effective strategies.

On his comment:
“American people now, after the pandemic, are more hostile to China as a consensus than ever before,”

The defense asked if Lai was inciting hatred toward the central government. Lai denied this, saying he was describing the changed sentiment of Americans toward China, which he believed would influence Biden’s approach to China.

Lai was also asked about his statement:
“I think that the yellow economic circle works as long as the suppression of the people continues.”

When questioned if this statement incited hatred toward the central or Hong Kong governments, Lai denied it, saying that the “yellow economic circle” arose as a response to people’s sense of oppression and that he was simply stating facts.

The defense referred to the prosecution’s claim that Lai’s description of Xi Jinping as a dictator was intended to incite hatred toward the central government. Lai denied this. When further asked if he intended to defame the government, Lai also denied it.

When asked if his description of Xi Jinping as a dictator was meant to portray the central government as dictatorial, Lai responded:
“I don’t need to describe it; it is a dictatorship.”

When pressed on why he called the central government dictatorial, Lai said:
“Because it is a single-party government controlled entirely by the Communist Party.”

The defense asked if Lai was inciting Hong Kong residents to unlawfully change the political system or stir dissatisfaction among residents. Lai denied this, stating that he merely referenced “yellow” and “blue” to explain the “yellow economic circle.”

When asked if he intended to cause discord between the “yellow” and “blue” groups, Lai denied this and also denied inciting others to break the law.

The defense further questioned if Lai supported the “yellow economic circle.” Lai replied that he did not, as he believed in a free economy, but he acknowledged that participating in the “yellow economic circle” seemed to support the freedom movement.

14:31 Program Calls Xi Jinping the “Most Absolute Dictator”; Lai: Simply Stating Facts

The defense presented Slack communications from Lai’s work platform and suggested providing him with the documents to review by Monday morning, postponing court proceedings until 11:30 a.m. However, the prosecution noted the documents comprised over 600 pages, questioning if Lai could complete his review in just over an hour. Judge Esther Toh suggested starting the session at 2:30 p.m. instead.

The defense then questioned Lai about his comments during the November 29, 2020 episode of Live Chat, where his guest was American journalist Nicholas Kristof. During the interview, Lai said:
“We have to realize that Xi Jinping is the most absolute dictator of human history.”

The defense asked if Lai intended to incite hatred toward the central government with this statement. Lai denied this, explaining that he was merely stating a fact. He clarified that he was not referring to how Xi exercised power through dictatorship but rather to his dominance in technology and economics, which gave him such immense influence.

When asked why he referred to Xi as becoming a dictator, Lai responded: “He is a dictator—he is not becoming a dictator.”

12:59 Lunch

12:48 Lai Claims He Was Unaware His Article Was Translated and Published in English the Next Day

Regarding the existence of two versions of Lai’s article, Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if there was a word limit for the print version. Lai confirmed there was but admitted that he often exceeded it. When asked if editors had the authority to cut paragraphs from his articles to meet the word limit, Lai said they did not. When pressed on why there were two versions of the article, Lai said he did not know and expressed confusion about the matter.

The defense then presented another article attributed to Lai, titled “Biden Duty-bound to Lead the Free World’s Containment of China,” which had been published in English. The defense pointed out that the opening paragraph of the English article stated:
“There might be more Trump supporters in Hong Kong and Taiwan than anywhere else during the 2020 US presidential election. The reason is simple. We have a common enemy called the CCP.”

The defense noted the similarity to a paragraph in Lai’s original article, which stated:
“During the 2020 US presidential election, Hong Kong and Taiwanese people were likely the biggest supporters of Trump’s reelection. The reason is simple: we all face CCP oppression and share a common enemy.”

Lai agreed that the sentiments were similar.

The defense asked if Lai was aware that his article had been translated into English or if he had requested it to be translated. Lai denied both.

When asked why the article was translated and published in English the day after the original, Lai said he did not know, explaining that his colleagues did not need his approval to translate articles. He reiterated that he had not requested a translation and had not considered an English version while writing the article.

The defense asked who was responsible for handling Lai’s articles. Lai stated that it was Ryan Law Wai-kwong.

12:35 Wrote About Hoping Biden Would Use Hong Kong as a Condition in Trade Talks; Lai: “Felt Desperate, Could Only Hold onto Hope”

The defense noted that Lai’s article had differences between its print and online versions, with the online version containing two additional paragraphs. Lai stated he had not noticed the discrepancy and that Ryan Law Wai-kwong, the editor, handled the online version. When asked if staff had ever sought his approval to modify his articles, Lai replied that this had never happened.

The additional paragraphs in the online version included:
“Some say Biden values human rights more than Trump and will care more about Hong Kong’s protest movement. This might be true in rhetoric, but politicians often say one thing and do another. Actions speak louder than words. If Biden could make Hong Kong’s rule of law, freedom, and the human rights situation in Xinjiang preconditions for negotiations to ease the trade war with the CCP, it would be a great service to humanity.”

The defense asked if Lai was advocating for the new U.S. administration to adopt hostile actions against China. Lai denied this, saying he was merely expressing hope.

When asked why he publicly expressed this hope in the article, Lai said:
“When you feel desperate, you hold onto hope, you hope against hope.” 

He said that he was writing about the Biden administration and expressing his aspirations for what he hoped they would do.

Regarding another part of the article where Lai wrote, “If Biden could continue Trump’s tough China policy and persist in completely removing the CCP’s threat to the world,” Lai stated that this was also his hope. He denied advocating for the U.S. government to take hostile actions against China.

12:20 Lai Confirms Concern That Biden Might Reverse Trump’s Tough Policies on China

In his article, Lai wrote:
“During Obama’s eight years, his multilateral diplomacy policies proved ineffective. When Trump took office, he promoted a unilateral ‘America First’ foreign policy. Regarding China, he acted alone, unrestrained by allies, using a tough approach to initiate a trade war to combat the CCP’s trade violations and technological theft.”

The defense asked if Lai advocated for sanctions against Chinese companies. Lai denied this, stating that such actions were already happening at the time.

The article also stated:
“Taiwan’s only hope is for the Western bloc to recognize the CCP as a threat to world peace… If Biden abandons Trump’s tough China policy, Taiwan will face dire consequences and have no choice but to fend for itself.”

When asked if he was inciting hatred toward the CCP, Lai denied this, emphasizing that he was merely describing the situation at the time. The defense further asked if he was advocating for the U.S. to adopt a tough or hostile policy toward China. Lai denied this, saying the tough policies were already in place, and he believed abandoning the elevation of Taiwan’s status would harm Taiwan.

Judge Esther Toh asked if Lai was worried that Biden might reverse anti-China policies. Lai confirmed this but clarified that he referred to “tough” policies, not “anti-China” (anti-China). Judge Toh cited Lai’s use of the word “fortunate” in the article:
“Fortunately, Biden cannot easily reverse Trump’s policies that confront the CCP.”

Toh asked if Lai felt happy that these policies could not be easily reversed. Lai confirmed this. When the defense asked what Lai meant by “tough” policies, he said they referred to overall strategies, such as trade wars and economic decoupling.

Judge Alex Lee brought up the first section of Lai’s article, where he mentioned Trump’s cancellation of Hong Kong’s special trade status. Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked if Lai hoped these policies wo⁴⁶quld continue. Lai said he had not expressed a desire for their continuation but was concerned that the Biden administration might not maintain them.

When asked why he expressed such concerns in the article, Lai said that Trump’s policies were effective and beneficial for Hong Kong. He explained that if Biden discontinued those policies, it would worry him.

Judge Toh asked why the policies were beneficial to Hong Kong. Lai responded that Trump had promised to engage seriously with China over Hong Kong issues. The defense asked why canceling Hong Kong’s special trade status would be advantageous. Lai explained that it could exert pressure on authorities to reconsider the National Security Law.

Judge Toh said that the National Security Law had already been implemented. Lai replied that he still hoped its impact could be mitigated, stating:
“When you’re desperate, you hope.”

12:02 Lai Denies Agreeing with Pompeo’s Statement That “Taiwan is Not Part of China”

The defense questioned Lai about his November 29 op-ed, “Success and Failure with a Laugh: Encircling China, Biden Caught in a Dilemma,” in which he wrote:
“Trump revoked Hong Kong’s special trade status, cutting off a lifeline for the CCP in case of a conflict with the U.S., and limiting its flexibility in trade, diplomacy, and politics. In addition, sanctions were imposed on officials who assisted the CCP in suppressing Hong Kongers.”

The defense asked if Lai advocated for the U.S. to continue sanctions and hostile actions. Lai denied this, emphasizing that he was merely describing events that were occurring at the time.

In the same article, Lai wrote:
“In this U.S. presidential election, Hong Kong and Taiwanese people were likely the biggest supporters of Trump’s re-election. The reason is simple: both are facing CCP suppression and share a common enemy… Additionally, sanctions on officials who helped suppress Hong Kongers caused personal losses for those officials, creating additional deterrence for others who might consider participating in the repression. This, to some extent, restrained the CCP’s rampant suppression of Hong Kongers under the National Security Law and gave the suffocating people of Hong Kong a sense of hope.”

The defense asked if Lai was advocating for the U.S. to continue sanctions targeting Hong Kong’s situation. Lai responded that he was simply expressing the sentiments of Hong Kongers at the time.

Judge Esther Toh asked if Lai was referring to himself, Taiwan, and Hong Kong as sharing the CCP as a common enemy. Lai agreed.

The article also stated:
“There are still more than two months left in the U.S. government transition. Trump is relentlessly strengthening U.S.-Taiwan relations, aiming to create an established fact regarding Taiwan policy that Biden cannot reverse. Pompeo’s remark that ‘Taiwan has never been a part of China’ negates the past ‘One-China’ policy, strikes at the CCP’s core, and directly challenges the CCP, which claims its military must focus on ‘preparing for war.’”

Lai clarified that he was pointing out the U.S.’s intention to elevate Taiwan’s status. When the defense asked if Pompeo’s statement represented the official U.S. position, Lai said it likely did not, as the official U.S. stance was still aligned with the “One-China” policy.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios questioned whether Lai seemed to support Pompeo’s statement. Lai clarified that he did not agree with Pompeo but believed the U.S. was attempting to elevate Taiwan’s status.

11:21 Break

11:00 Lai: Hong Kong Shares Western Values and Fights China on the Frontline

In the interview, Lai stated:
“If we fail, if we are defeated, that could be a damage to the credibility of the Western countries’ value system.”

In court, Lai explained that Hong Kong shares the same values as Western countries, including institutional freedom. He argued that if the West ignored Hong Kong’s situation and allowed it to be crushed, it would damage their credibility. When asked by the defense whether he was inviting foreign countries to take action regarding Hong Kong, Lai responded that he was asking them to support Hong Kong.

When pressed on how Western countries could protect and maintain Hong Kong’s institutional freedom, Lai said he was neither a politician nor a government official and thus did not know what resources or strategies they had. He emphasized that the West should pay attention to Hong Kong’s situation because of the shared values:
“If they let us fall without helping us, that damages the value system.”

Judge Esther Toh asked how Lai expected the West to help Hong Kong. Lai responded that he had no specific ideas because he did not know their strategies or resources. Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios further inquired what Lai wanted the West to do. Lai said he was never asked such a question at the time and could not provide an answer, reiterating that he was referring to general support.

When the defense asked what Lai would say if someone asked what kind of help was needed, Lai said he would admit he did not know what they could do.

Judge Alex Lee brought up several pieces of U.S. legislation related to Hong Kong that had been passed at the time. Lai acknowledged having impressions of the Hong Kong Autonomy Act, the Hong Kong People’s Freedom and Choice Act, and sanctions on Chinese and Hong Kong officials but said he was not familiar with the Hong Kong Safe Harbor Act. When asked if Lai had requested sanctions to support Hong Kong, he denied this, stating that the U.S. had acted on its own initiative and not at his request.

Referring to Lai’s statement during the interview:
“We are on the frontier fighting for the value that the free world shares with us, the value we look back to and learn from. That’s why Hong Kong matters, because we matter as the value holders of the West. We are fighting on the frontier for this value, and we need the Western countries—the U.S., the British, the EU countries—to have our back.”

Lai explained in court that Hong Kong shares Western values and is on the frontline of the battle against China—a battle of values.

10:45 Lai: Morale High at Apple Daily After Executives’ Arrests, Determined to Continue Operations

The defense questioned Lai about his November 27 discussion with Benedict Rogers, founder of the human rights organization Hong Kong Watch. During the conversation, Rogers asked about the challenges faced by Apple Daily and Lai. Referring to the arrest of Lai and other senior executives of Apple Daily, Lai said:

“Some of the executives were arrested along with me, but the morale is still high. Only a few of our staff resigned just because they got intimidated. But otherwise, we are fighting on, and people are very determined to keep the business going, although we don’t know how long we can keep it under the National Security Law. Now Hong Kong is all quiet; it is all intimidated.”

In court, Lai elaborated that his comments meant a determination to persist with Apple Daily’s operations despite the difficult circumstances.

Lai also stated during the discussion:
“If we fall, it’s like Berlin falling during the Cold War with the Soviet Union. If Berlin falls, the credibility of the American and European countries, and their political will to fight the Soviet Union, will collapse.”

In court, Lai explained that this was a metaphor. He compared Hong Kong to Berlin and China to the Soviet Union, emphasizing the symbolic significance of Hong Kong’s struggle in the broader global context.

10:30 Lai: Meetings with Officials Less Important than Media Interviews

During the interview, Jack Keane praised Lai’s efforts in the U.S. Lai explained in court that this was because he gave media interviews almost daily and had met with officials such as Mike Pompeo in 2019. However, Lai believed that media interviews were more important than meetings with officials, as interviews allowed him to communicate directly with the public.

Keane remarked during the program:
“There is no person from the region of the world who has spoken more to the leaders of the United States of America and to the people of the United States of America than Jimmy Lai.”

When asked how he interpreted Keane’s statement, Lai described it in court as somewhat exaggerated.

Keane also stated:
“There is huge support in the Congress of the United States for what is happening.”

Lai believed this referred to support for Hong Kong. He added that Keane did not specify what form this support would take and that it would be inappropriate to speculate. However, he said that events at the time had raised awareness among U.S. lawmakers.

The interview also mentioned hopes that the U.S. government would not just “talk the talk” but also “walk the walk,” implying action. The defense asked if Lai was advocating for hostility, blockades, or sanctions against China. Lai denied this, stating that he was merely raising questions.

10:20 Lai Agreed with Guest’s Statement that China is a Threat to the U.S.

The defense questioned Lai about the November 26, 2020 episode of Live Chat with Jimmy Lai, which featured retired U.S. General Jack Keane as a guest. The defense presented a transcript showing that Lai expressed agreement with Keane’s statements. Lai clarified in court that he agreed with Keane’s analysis of the political situation at the time, particularly regarding Joe Biden becoming president.

The defense cited specific remarks made by Jack Keane, including his assertion that the Trump administration viewed China as a long-term threat to the U.S., which he praised. When asked if he agreed with this statement, Lai said that China was undoubtedly the U.S.’s greatest competitor. He explained that strong competition could be interpreted as a threat, which was his personal understanding of the statement.

Regarding Keane’s opinion that the Trump administration’s economic confrontation with China was the correct approach, Lai expressed some reservations in court. He stated that while he supported free-market economics and believed that trade imbalances would resolve themselves, intervention often caused harm. He criticized Trump’s rush to create jobs for the poor in the U.S. by bringing manufacturing back, saying it overlooked the long-term economic consequences.

The defense also highlighted a comment made by Lai during the program, where he said:
“Biden can no longer use the Obama way of vision and policy towards China or appeasing.”

When asked if this meant Lai was advocating or recommending hostile actions by the Biden administration toward China, Lai denied it. He explained that his statement reflected the changed sentiment of Americans toward China due to the pandemic, which influenced his thinking at the time.

10:16 Court in Session

The Witness