Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai, charged with “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces” and other offenses, appeared Monday, Jan. 13, for the 118th day of his trial at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts, which is temporarily serving as the High Court. It was the 26th day of Lai’s testimony.

During the morning session, Lai was allowed to remain in court to review records from the Slack work platform. In the afternoon, the defense questioned him about related conversations.

Slack records showed that Apple Daily Motion News Platform Director Cheung Chi-wai had suggested developing a subscription model with “opinionated, news-style columns” and “exclusive feature interviews and videos.” Lai responded on the platform that these were good suggestions and agreed that “the importance of interviews and feature videos is growing.” In court, Lai denied issuing editorial directives, stating he was merely expressing agreement with the proposals.

The case is being heard by High Court-designated National Security Law judges Esther Toh Lye-ping, Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios, and Alex Lee Wan-tang. The prosecution team includes Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Anthony Chau Tin-hang, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Ivan Cheung Cheuk-kan, and Senior Public Prosecutor Crystal Chan Wing-sum. Lai’s defense team includes Senior Counsel Robert Pang Yiu-hung, barrister Steven Kwan Man-wai, and New Zealand King’s Counsel Marc Corlett, who is qualified to practice in Hong Kong.

Detailed Transcript

16:34 Court Adjourns

16:20 Lai States “Live Chat” Was Unrelated to Apple Daily Executives

The defense stated it had concluded questions about the final episode of “Live Chat” and would move on to summary questions.

The defense asked whether, from the implementation of the National Security Law (NSL) until Dec. 1, 2020, Jimmy Lai, along with Apple Daily executives and three related Apple Daily companies implicated in the case, had requested foreign or external forces — including Taiwan and the United States — to impose sanctions, blockades, or hostile actions against China. Lai denied the claim, saying he had been cautious to avoid taking any risks.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang inquired whether “Live Chat” host and former South China Morning Post editor-in-chief Mark Clifford was a co-conspirator. The prosecution responded that he was not. The defense asked whether Lai, along with Apple Daily executives or the three related companies, had agreed to publish the allegedly incriminating content on Twitter or in “Live Chat.” Lai denied this, stating it was unrelated to others.

Judge Lee further questioned whether Apple Daily was involved in “Live Chat.” Lai responded that it was not, aside from two Apple Daily employees assisting with the discussions during the program and placing the program on the Apple Daily platform. When asked if Lai was aware the program would be placed on the Apple Daily platform, he confirmed that he was.

The defense then asked whether Apple Daily executives, including Cheung Kim-hung, Chan Pui-man, Yeung Ching-kee, and Mark Simon, had agreed to the publication of “Live Chat.” Lai said it was unrelated to them. Judge Lee noted that Lai previously testified that Mark Simon had introduced guests for the program. Lai agreed, stating that Mark Simon introduced most of the guests but emphasized that the defense had asked about agreements, and he had responded that there were none. Judge Lee asked whether Mark Simon arranged program guests for Lai, and Lai confirmed this.

The defense further inquired whether the content of the “Live Chat” program or Lai’s interviews with foreign media were related to Simon Lee or Mark Simon. Lai denied this. Regarding Lai’s op-ed articles, he also stated that they were unrelated to Apple Daily executives, Simon Lee, or Mark Simon.

The defense noted that one of the charges in the case extends to June 2021. Therefore, they would ask Lai further questions regarding his circumstances during remand, estimating it would take two hours to complete. As Lai is required to appear in the High Court on Tuesday and Wednesday for his fraud appeal hearing, the trial will resume on Thursday (16th).

16:10 Lai Advocated Continuing Resistance In Program; Judges Urge Him to Clarify What He Meant 

During the program, Jimmy Lai stated:

“We in Hong Kong must continue to resist. When we can spread our values across to the mainland, allowing mainland people to understand our values, it poses a great threat to the CCP regime… Therefore, I say that if we do not continue to resist and try our best to preserve Hong Kong’s rule of law and freedom, no matter what we do, we will ultimately not become Hong Kong anymore. We won’t just turn into another city on the mainland, but rather Xinjiang—or even worse than Xinjiang.”

The defense asked what Lai meant by “resistance.” Lai said it referred to opposing China’s infringements, denying that his statement incited violence or illegal activities.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked what “continue to resist” meant. Lai explained that after the implementation of the National Security Law (NSL), he hoped for smaller-scale movements compared to those before, but emphasized this was merely wishful thinking. He acknowledged that such movements could not happen under the NSL.

When Judge Remedios asked if Lai was referring to protest movements, Lai responded that such movements were no longer possible under the NSL. She pressed further, asking what resistance referred to before the NSL. Lai replied that it included demonstrations. When asked to confirm whether resistance movements referred to demonstrations, Lai reiterated that protests were no longer feasible, though he had hoped for smaller-scale actions, which were only an idealistic thought.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping inquired what kinds of small-scale movements Lai had in mind. Lai stated that he hadn’t thought deeply about it and that it was merely a hope. Judge Remedios asked how Lai thought his audience would interpret “resistance.” Lai replied that the audience would interpret it in their own way, but they would also understand the reality that resistance was no longer possible. He reiterated that it was just a hope since, at that time, there were no other options.

Regarding his statement, “If we do not continue to try to preserve Hong Kong’s rule of law and freedom,” Lai explained that even after the NSL took effect, there were still people who loved Hong Kong and wished to protect it.

Judge Toh then asked what message Lai intended to convey with that statement. Lai clarified that he was not asking people to continue resisting but was merely expressing his opinion. He emphasized again that nothing could be done under the NSL and that it was just a hope.

16:00 Program Advocates Raising Human Rights Issues in U.S.-China Trade Talks; Lai Asserts Human Rights Are International Issues, Not Internal Affairs

The defense cited statements made by Jimmy Lai during an interview program, where he said:

“I think it is very important for the Biden administration to realize that, to deal with the CCP, you have to deal with strength, not appeasement, not weakness.”

The defense asked if Lai equated “appeasement” with “weakness.” Lai denied this, explaining that “strength” referred to adopting a firm stance to avoid being perceived as weak, emphasizing it as diplomatic strength.

The defense further referenced Lai’s remarks about U.S.-China trade negotiations:

“Link human rights and all the violations of human rights, like the Hong Kong issue, the Uyghur issue, and all the deals that they make with China. I think this is very important.”

The defense asked if Lai was advocating for the U.S. to take hostile action against China. Lai denied this, stating, “Human rights is not hostility.” When questioned whether these were China’s internal affairs, Lai responded that human rights are not internal matters but international issues.

The defense also pointed to another statement from Lai during the interview:

“The West’s pressure on China is very important because now is the best time to change China when they are in great crisis, especially Xi Jinping is in great crisis. If we don’t put pressure on China, at least for Xi Jinping to step down, we’ll be sorry.”

In court, Lai clarified that the “pressure” he referred to was “political pressure.” When asked if this constituted hostile actions against China, Lai denied it, describing it as “criticizing.” He further explained that he hoped for Xi Jinping to step down, as the issues between China and the West had become so severe that Xi’s resignation was one of the ways to resolve the problems. Lai stated that if Xi did not step down, it would be difficult to imagine how the issues could be resolved.

When asked what message he intended to convey through his interview statements, Lai said that if Xi stepped down, it could pave the way for the Chinese Communist Party to embrace liberalization and alignment with global norms.

15:14 Program Discusses Free Speech in China to Curb Pandemics; Lai Denies Incitement, Claims He Was Stating Facts

The defense presented a transcript of the December 1, 2020, episode of “Live Chat With Jimmy Lai.” In the program, Lai said:

“A lot of those aligned countries, they don’t care about Taiwan, except Japan, India, or Korea, so they won’t have an agenda strong enough to really help Taiwan to upgrade its international status and its relationship with the US and all the EU countries, and that’s very worrisome.”
 

Lai explained that he believed, apart from Japan, India, or Korea, some European allied countries lacked the political influence to help Taiwan enhance its international standing. He stated to viewers that multilateralism was a poor strategy for Taiwan. The defense asked whether Lai was advocating for the elevation of Taiwan’s status as a hostile action against China. Lai denied this, explaining that he was merely pointing out that these countries had little relationship with Taiwan, their concern for Taiwan was weak, and multilateralism was not beneficial to Taiwan.

In the same interview, Lai discussed the COVID-19 pandemic:

“You just talk about Covid, they want to really cooperate with China to solve the Covid problems because China is the major region, origins of the virus. To solve that problem is not cooperation, to solve that problem is to demand freedom of speech in China because, if there was freedom of speech, Dr. Li, who first discovered the virus, put it on social media, and the people would take caution, and the government would contain the virus where it originates. The world would have saved the disaster. So I think the world should be alert that the solution to the future pandemic is to demand China give its people the freedom of speech so no longer any deception or cover-up will be possible.”
 

The defense asked whether Lai was inciting hatred against the central government. Lai denied this, stating he was merely presenting facts.

The defense further quoted Lai, where he mentioned that the entire world was targeting China and that China maintained a “wolf-warrior attitude” toward Australia. The defense questioned whether Lai was advocating for the world to oppose China. Lai denied this as well, emphasizing that he was only describing events at the time and was not inciting global opposition to China.

15:00 Lai States “Supporting Small Shops” Initiative Was Proposed by Staff; He Did Not Attend the Meeting

The defense questioned the focus of the “lunchbox meeting” held on December 6, 2020, first presenting WhatsApp messages between Lai and his secretary, Julie. In the messages, Julie wrote:

“Kim Hung (Cheung Kim-hung) will chair this week’s lunchbox meeting—‘Apple Daily Print Ads.’ Arrangements are as follows:

• Date: Dec 6 (Friday)
• Time: 12:30 PM
• Location: 5/F, VIP room

Attendee list (9 people in total):

1. KH Cheung
2. So Hing Lun, Alan (Business Director)
3. Chan Wing Sun, Raymond (Sales Production Director)
4. Yip Kwok Kin, Victor (Traffic Manager)
   …
5. Cheung Suk Yi, Eva (Account Manager)

Note: Royston is on a business trip to the US and Canada this week.”

In response, Lai messaged that he would not be in Hong Kong on December 6 and arranged for Cheung Kim-hung to chair the meeting.

The defense referenced Cheung’s court testimony, in which he stated that during a 2019 meeting with the advertising department, Lai had instructed them to launch a “Supporting Small Shops” classified ad campaign. At the time, the protests were “very intense,” and many small shops involved in the protests were supported by Hongkongers who chose to patronize them based on their political stance, forming what became known as the “Yellow Economic Circle.”

The defense presented Slack communication records from December 3, 2019, where an employee suggested, “Why not focus on some SMEs, especially yellow-ribbon small shops? Our paper could offer them special discounts to place ads… This Yellow Economic Circle mostly comprises middle-class, high-income, high-spending individuals.” In court, Lai explained that the employee was from the sales department and that “yellow-ribbon small shops” referred to businesses supporting the social movement at the time. The “Yellow Economic Circle” referred to supporting such shops to back the pro-democracy movement.

Slack records showed Lai telling employees: “Dear colleagues, apologies, I’m on holiday in Japan and won’t be able to attend this meeting. Kim Hung will chair it. Thank you.” The defense also presented Lai’s immigration records, which showed that he left Hong Kong on December 2 and only returned on December 11. When asked if he participated in the meeting virtually, Lai replied that he did not.

Regarding advertisements for “yellow-ribbon small shops,” Lai stated that staff likely found it difficult to arrange ads for these shops. They tried for several months but ultimately failed.

The defense asked whether Lai, as Cheung testified, had instructed employees to push for the “Supporting Small Shops” classified ad campaign. Lai denied this, stating he did not attend the meeting and that the idea was proposed by staff without his input. When further questioned, Lai said he did not recall the matter but noted that if he had received meeting minutes mentioning the “Supporting Small Shops” initiative, he would have expressed support. However, he did not recall the campaign being discussed elsewhere.

Finally, the defense asked whether Lai had expressed support for the proposal through other channels to Cheung Kim-hung. Lai responded that he had not.

14:45 Judges Question Whether Lai’s Replies Constituted Editorial Directions; Lai Claims They Were Merely Suggestions on Effective Information Gathering

In another conversation, Jimmy Lai was seen responding to employees on Slack:

“1. Feature interviews lack journalists’ perspectives. Hong Kong is too small, societal issues are concentrated, and similar reports are quickly picked up by other platforms. Unique perspectives are the valuable asset that retains subscribers… This depends on the journalist’s insight, but it doesn’t mean unique perspectives are always good. What matters most is that journalists have their own viewpoints, which isn’t necessarily related to uniqueness.

2. There are too many live streams right now, and the content is disorganized. Live streams about government issues, real-time news, and finance or property tours attract a lot of viewers and can be increased, whereas other types of live streams can be reduced. @Nick, please share your thoughts on this matter.
3. Suggest strengthening parenting content (Apple Daily has Easy PaMa, but the content isn’t practical enough). Focus on real-life examples, strategies, and guides because online information is chaotic and hard to verify. For instance, categories like finding desirable schools, details about teaching staff, environment, and facilities. @We’re currently developing weekend parenting content… I believe other parenting-related content can also be improved.”

The defense asked whether Lai was giving editorial directions. Lai denied this, reiterating that he was merely offering suggestions on improving the quality of journalism.

The defense then presented Slack records from January 7, 2020, where Lai had also marked with a sticky note: “This may be misconstrued as an editorial direction.” In one exchange, an employee stated, “Apple readers have always been very interested in news related to Xi Jinping’s regime and the societal impact of China’s economy. We could produce more in-depth reports on this.” Lai replied, “Deepening coverage of China news will be very important in the future since China’s actions will increasingly impact Hong Kong. Alright, let’s discuss this then.” The defense asked if this constituted an editorial direction. Lai denied it, saying his intention was to emphasize the importance of gathering information effectively for deeper reporting.

Judge Esther Toh questioned Lai, noting that his reply referred to “deepening coverage of China news,” rather than gathering information. Lai clarified that he meant gathering information to support in-depth reporting. Toh pressed further, asking, “Isn’t this an editorial direction? You’re asking them to focus on in-depth coverage of China news.” Lai insisted it was about gathering materials for deeper reporting.

The defense also cited Slack records from 2018, where Lai had similarly flagged comments as “potentially misconstrued as editorial directions.” In one instance, Lai responded to an employee: “Increasing exposés is correct, especially now that the mainland and the Hong Kong government are colluding to undermine ‘One Country, Two Systems.’ Property prices distort societal values, pro-establishment bootlicking is shameless, and the public is under immense pressure. Responsible media should speak up for them and serve as an outlet. We should do our best to fulfill this role.” Lai denied giving editorial directions, stating he was merely responding to the employee’s suggestion about what news to gather.

Judge Toh pressed Lai again, stating that he seemed to be directing staff not to gather information but to reflect the public’s feelings, particularly those oppressed by pro-establishment forces. Lai replied that this was achieved by gathering news information. Toh questioned further, “Isn’t this an editorial direction? You’re asking them to focus on reporting the feelings of the anti-establishment side.” Lai disagreed.

Finally, regarding Lai’s December 2018 response to employees where he said, “We should review and eliminate news that has few readers and focus on doing our best and most detailed work on content that readers love. Especially after moving to subscriptions, quality is the most important factor. We must aim for refinement, even with fewer pieces. Let’s not aim for diversity, just excel in our strengths,” Lai denied giving editorial directions in court. He claimed he was merely asking staff to focus more on certain reports, which he emphasized was about how to gather news information.

14:40 Defense Questions Regarding Work Platform Conversations

The defense informed the court that Jimmy Lai had reviewed the relevant Slack records from the work platform starting at 10 a.m. this morning in court and had taken some notes on sticky notes. The defense mentioned that Lai marked certain parts of the Slack records with notes such as, “This may be misconstrued as an editorial direction.” The defense plans to question Lai one by one, including the following conversation regarding his response to a suggestion from Cheung Chi-wai, Director of Apple Daily’s Motion News Platform.

“Boss, everyone, when Apple shifts to a subscription model in the future, our focus on content should consider what unique content we offer that makes people willing to pay to watch us.

I believe our paid content should have two directions:

• Provide opinionated, news-style columns… @Agreed
• Exclusive feature interviews and videos. Videos are very important; written news can be copied, but videos cannot… @Exclusive interviews directed at feature video production teams are a great suggestion. The importance of interviews and feature videos is growing.”

Jimmy Lai confirmed that before responding, he copied and pasted the employees’ conversation, and the content following the “@” symbol was written by him. The defense asked if Lai had given editorial directions. Lai stated that this was “a very remote one,” merely expressing agreement with the first suggestion and not providing any editorial directions. Regarding the second suggestion—”Exclusive interviews directed at feature video production teams are a great suggestion”—Lai denied offering advice, saying it was merely about improving content quality.

14:32 Court in Session

The Witness