The trial of Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai, charged with “conspiring to collude with foreign forces,” resumed Tuesday at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts, acting as the High Court, for its 138th day. Lai testified for the 46th day, while the prosecution continued its cross-examination for the 20th day.

Among the 161 articles involved in the case, 133 were not written by Lai. After reading the relevant articles Monday, Lai confirmed Tuesday that he had previously read some of them, including pieces by Ngan Shun-kau and Allan Au. However, he could not recall when he was first provided with newspapers after being remanded.

Lai also testified that after the National Security Law took effect, he did not specifically warn Apple Daily senior executives to be cautious, but he did mention to employees as a whole that they needed to be extremely careful in operating under the law.

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

Detailed Transcript

16:26 Court Adjourns

16:18 Prosecution Alleges Lai Ordered the Recruitment of Overseas Writers After the National Security Law; Lai Suggests Glacier Kwong May Have Been Contacted by Ryan Law

The prosecution presented two articles: Time for UK to Bring HSBC to Heel, written by Michael Cox and published on December 15, 2020, and Why People Reckon Upon Germany Speaking Up Against Human Rights Violations, written by activist Glacier Kwong Chung-ching and published on January 28, 2021.

Lai stated that he did not know whether the two were overseas writers. The prosecution referred to testimony from Yeung Ching-kee, who claimed that after the implementation of the National Security Law, some authors were concerned about the legal red lines, unsure of the boundaries and risks involved. As a result, Lai allegedly instructed them to seek overseas writers, as they would have fewer concerns. The prosecution asked whether Michael Cox and Glacier Kwong were overseas writers recruited in response to Lai’s instructions.

Lai responded that Glacier Kwong was likely not one of them, suggesting that she may have been contacted by Fung Wai-kong instead, as he was certain that Yeung did not reach out to her, given that Yeung was not responsible for handling English-language articles.

Regarding Glacier Kwong’s article, which stated, “Now is the time for Germany to take a more active role in human rights issues,” the prosecution questioned whether her views aligned with Apple Daily‘s stance. Lai responded that he had not read her article at the time and thus could not answer. The prosecution then asked whether, having read the article now, he could answer. Lai maintained that he could not respond, as his current knowledge did not reflect his understanding at the time.

16:10 Prosecution Alleges Lee Yee’s Article Incites Hatred, Lai Disagrees

The prosecution presented an article written by columnist Lee Yee, titled Beware of Leftist Ideologies, published on October 28, 2020. Lai confirmed that the article was available in both Chinese and English and that by that time, he had already been arrested under the charge of colluding with foreign forces. The prosecution asked whether Lee Yee was a new writer. Lai responded that he was not, stating that Lee had been writing columns and editorials for Apple Daily for a long time, although Lai himself had never read his editorials.

The prosecution then quoted a passage from the article:

*”During a televised debate, he said that if elected, his China policy would be: ‘I will ask China to abide by international rules, unlike him (Trump), who engages in a trade war.’

This is the most terrifying statement! It means he will continue to simply ask China to abide by international rules without imposing any penalties on rule-breakers, unlike the trade war. He will not sanction Chinese and Hong Kong officials who violate human rights and breach international commitments, nor will he extend a helping hand to the persecuted. Netizens responded: ‘Just for saying this, you are truly waiting in vain,’ and ‘As long as international rules are changed to match China’s rules, then China will indeed be complying with international rules.’”*

The prosecution asked whether Lee Yee wanted the then-U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden to take punitive measures against China. Lai countered, “Where does it say that?” The prosecution argued that Lee not only wanted Biden to demand that China abide by international rules but also hoped Biden would impose sanctions, similar to Trump. Lai responded that the article did not state this, but only pointed out that Biden would not sanction China. 

The prosecution pressed further, asking whether Lee Yee wished for Biden to take punitive measures against China, just as Trump had. Lai questioned, “Where do you see that?” He maintained that the article only stated Biden would not act like Trump. The prosecution then asked whether Lai was aware that the article called for sanctions or hostile actions against Chinese and Hong Kong officials. Lai responded that the article merely said Biden would not sanction officials responsible for human rights violations. He then turned the question back on the prosecution, asking, “How do you put it in reverse to ask me?”

The prosecution stated that they would not argue with Lai, but Lai again accused them of twisting the question. The prosecution then asserted that the article incited hatred against the Chinese central government and the Hong Kong government. Lai disagreed. The prosecution further claimed that the article encouraged Hong Kong residents to use illegal means to change the existing legal system. Lai disagreed, stating, “This is Lee Yee’s article, not mine. I didn’t write it.” The prosecution also asked whether the article incited others to break the law. Lai denied the allegation.

15:48 Lai Says He Does Not Have to Fully Agree with Articles Published in Apple Daily

The prosecution questioned Lai about an article written by “Yi Jian Piao Chen” on July 18, 2020, titled Will the U.S. Sanction Carrie Lam? The prosecution asked whether Lai had instructed Apple Daily opinion editor Yeung Ching-kee, chief editor Law Wai-kwong, or English edition editor Fung Wai-kong not to publish the article. Lai said he had not.

The article stated:

“U.S. President Donald Trump signed the Hong Kong Autonomy Act while also signing an executive order terminating Hong Kong’s preferential economic treatment. Sensitive technologies from the U.S. can no longer be exported to Hong Kong, and the special privileges for Hong Kong passport holders have been revoked. Anyone concerned about Hong Kong’s future should be worried… In my view, the Hong Kong Autonomy Act is specifically designed to target Hong Kong officials like Carrie Lam. This law has limited impact on Chinese officials, as they can continue their misconduct in mainland China and might even be promoted due to sanctions. However, Hong Kong is an international city, and officials like Carrie Lam and their families have various international ties and may even hold foreign passports. The U.S. has many sanction tools at its disposal, including asset freezes and travel bans, as well as the power to sanction financial institutions that provide services to these officials. By doing so, the U.S. can easily extend the sanctions across the entire Western world. For instance, if the U.S. sanctions Carrie Lam, all banks operating in Hong Kong would be required to terminate accounts belonging to her and her family. She and her entire family might have to flee to Shaanxi’s Liangjiahe, where Xi Jinping once worked as a laborer, and open a rural credit union account there.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai shared the same views as the article and whether he had always advocated for sanctions. Lai responded that he was not aware of the article’s content. The prosecution further pointed out the article’s statement that “The Hong Kong Autonomy Act is specifically designed to target Hong Kong officials like Carrie Lam.” Lai replied that this was the author’s personal opinion. When asked if he disagreed with this view, Lai said it was the author’s perspective, and while he had read the article, he had not given it deep thought.

The prosecution then quoted another passage from the article: “Once sanctioned, they will have to survive on cash. Of course, for Hong Kong officials and police, this seems quite fitting—after all, aren’t gangsters known for dealing in cash?” The prosecution asked if Lai agreed with this statement. Lai responded that it was a descriptive statement and that the author was merely illustrating a reality—he had no basis to either agree or disagree with it.

The article further stated: “Hong Kong, one of the world’s three major financial centers, has been ravaged by the evil forces of the CCP and figures like Carrie Lam. If the U.S. imposes financial sanctions, punishing these evildoers, wouldn’t it be poetic justice?” Lai asserted that this was entirely the author’s opinion. The prosecution then argued that Lai had consistently advocated for sanctions and hostile actions. Lai denied this, stating that his advocacy had only occurred before the enactment of the National Security Law and that he had never called for hostile actions.

The prosecution pressed further, asking whether Lai had always wanted Hong Kong officials to be sanctioned for human rights violations. Lai responded that this did not mean he had to analyze the author’s perspective. The prosecution then argued that the author was using Apple Daily as a platform to express personal views. Lai countered that many people used Apple Daily as a platform, but that did not mean he had to fully agree with those opinions.

The prosecution asked if Lai had ever instructed Yeung Ching-kee not to publish the article. Lai replied that this was Yeung’s decision. When asked whether he had ever directed Yeung not to publish similar articles, Lai said he had not, as he did not see the need to do so. Lai also confirmed that he had never instructed Fung Wai-kong or Ryan Law Wai-kwong to take down the article, nor had he requested its removal from the website, emphasizing that he generally did not involve himself in editorial decisions.

The prosecution further argued that Lai was aware the article targeted Hong Kong officials and the central government, calling for sanctions or hostile actions. Lai disagreed. The prosecution also accused the article of inciting hatred against Hong Kong officials and the central government, encouraging Hong Kong residents to use illegal means to change the existing legal system, and instigating people to break the law. Lai firmly denied all these accusations.

15:26 Break

15:15 Lai Disagrees That Mention of Retaliation in Article Equates to Advocating Sanctions

The prosecution questioned Lai on whether he was aware that the author, Yi Jian Piao Chen, was advocating for sanctions and hostile actions against China. Lai responded that he did not know, stating that he had only read the author’s articles. Judge Lee Wan-tang then asked whether Lai was aware, at the time of reading, that the author was advocating for sanctions against Hong Kong. Lai disagreed, stating that the author did not propose sanctions specifically targeting Hong Kong.

The prosecution then argued that the article was attempting to incite hatred against the central government and Hong Kong. Lai refuted the claim, stating, “How could I know what he thought? How could you know? This is amazing, it is somebody who wrote this.” He denied the accusation and turned the question back on the prosecution, asking, “How could I agree?”

The prosecution further asserted that the article was inciting Hong Kong residents to use illegal means to alter the existing legal system. Lai again responded, “How could I know? How could I know? Tell me please. I’m just wondering, you know, because you’re so smart.”

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios interrupted, reprimanding Lai for his remarks and instructing him not to make such comments, stating, “Please do not come out with those smart alecks.” Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang also urged Lai to simply answer whether he agreed or disagreed, emphasizing that the case involved over a hundred articles, and if Lai continued responding in this manner, the trial could drag on until next year.

The prosecution then asked whether the article was intended to provoke dissatisfaction with the enforcement of justice and incite lawlessness. Lai disagreed. The prosecution further questioned whether Lai had ever instructed Yeung Ching-kee not to publish articles related to sanctions. Lai responded by asking where in the article sanctions were mentioned. The prosecution pointed to the reference to the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. Lai countered, “Does that necessarily mean sanctions?”

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang clarified that the article stated, “The U.S. will undoubtedly retaliate until Hong Kong’s autonomous status is revoked,” suggesting that it anticipated adverse actions from the U.S. against Hong Kong. Lai maintained that he disagreed with the term “retaliation,” arguing that it was an incorrect choice of words.

Judge Lee then asked whether Lai had reminded his colleagues to avoid violating the National Security Law. Lai confirmed that he had. Lee further inquired whether Lai had considered the possibility that the article might violate the National Security Law. Lai stated that he had not thought about it in those terms. Lee then asked if Lai had instructed Yeung to tell the author not to write similar articles in the future. Lai replied that he had not, as he did not see any mention of sanctions in the article.

15:00 Lai: Disagrees That the U.S. Would ‘Retaliate’ but Agrees It Would Change Hong Kong’s Status Due to the National Security Law

The prosecution cited another passage from the article “How Can There Be Peace Under the Gun?”:

“First of all, the operation of the National Security Law completely violates the principle of One Country, Two Systems. It constitutes a hardline intervention by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in Hong Kong’s legislative affairs and has already triggered a strong backlash from the U.S. To support the people of Hong Kong, the U.S. previously enacted the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, which requires an annual review of Hong Kong’s autonomy status. However, instead of showing restraint, the CCP forcibly passed the National Security Law, completely undermining Hong Kong’s legislative power and declaring to the world that Hong Kong is no longer capable of self-governance. Given the broader U.S.-China confrontation, this is akin to a small-scale Pearl Harbor-style sneak attack on the U.S., and the U.S. will undoubtedly retaliate until Hong Kong’s autonomous status is revoked. Can Hong Kong still retain its position as an international financial center? Without it, Hong Kong won’t even compare to Shenzhen. At least Shenzhen has a vast supply of cheap mainland labor to support its economy. Where will Hong Kong find such a resource?”

The prosecution asked whether Lai agreed with the article. Lai responded that he did not fully agree, as he did not understand the author’s reference to “Pearl Harbor,” but he did agree that Hong Kong would lose its status as an international financial center.

The prosecution then questioned why Lai claimed not to understand the meaning of “Pearl Harbor” when he had previously mentioned it in his Live Chat program. Lai explained that the contexts were different. The prosecution further asked whether Lai considered Yi Jian Piao Chen’s article to be well-written. Lai confirmed that it was well-written but stated that not all parts of it were good.

The prosecution then asked if Lai agreed with the statement, “The U.S. will undoubtedly retaliate until Hong Kong’s autonomous status is revoked.” Lai stated that he did not fully agree with the claim that the U.S. would “retaliate,” adding that the U.S. had nothing to “retaliate” against. He believed that the U.S. would simply stop treating Hong Kong as a distinct entity. He reiterated that while he did not think the U.S. would take retaliatory actions, he agreed that Washington would change Hong Kong’s status.

The prosecution pressed further, asking if Lai agreed with the measures the U.S. took against Hong Kong. Lai responded that he agreed the U.S. would adjust Hong Kong’s treatment under the National Security Law. When asked whether he agreed with the actions outlined in the article, Lai stated that the article did not explicitly list any measures; it merely suggested that the U.S. would implement changes that would affect Hong Kong’s One Country, Two Systems framework.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai disagreed with comparing Hong Kong to Shenzhen. Lai stated that he did not have sufficient knowledge of Shenzhen to make a comparison. However, he confirmed that he agreed the U.S. had taken measures to revoke Hong Kong’s special status in response to the National Security Law.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang raised the point that Lai might have anticipated certain events occurring, but that did not necessarily mean he welcomed them. The prosecution’s question, Lee noted, was about whether Lai foresaw the changes, not whether he endorsed them. The prosecution responded that Lai had agreed with the author’s ideas and that the author was advocating for the U.S. to revoke Hong Kong’s status as an international financial center. Judge Lee questioned whether this interpretation accurately reflected the prosecution’s argument. The prosecution stated that they would further elaborate on the case in due course.

14:51 Lai: Did Not Individually Warn Executives About the National Security Law but Reminded Employees in Various Settings

The prosecution questioned articles published after the enactment of the National Security Law (NSL) in July 2020, referencing Lai’s previous testimony that he had warned others, including his colleagues, to be cautious. The prosecution asked whether Lai had specifically warned former Next Digital CEO Cheung Kim-hung, former Apple Daily associate publisher Chan Pui-man, former executive chief editor Lam Man-chung, and former chief editor Ryan Law. Lai stated that he did not warn Cheung, as he was already very cautious, nor did he specifically warn Chan, Lam, or Law.

Lai explained that he had reminded employees collectively on various occasions, with executives also present, rather than giving individual warnings. He added that he had cautioned employees both before and after the implementation of the NSL, including during Apple Daily’s 25th anniversary event, advising them to be careful. When employees asked whether operations would continue, Lai responded that they should proceed with extreme caution and continue running the newspaper until it became impossible to do so.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai had warned Yeung Ching-kee (pen name: Li Ping). Lai replied that Yeung was likely not present at the time. The prosecution proceeded to display the July 4, 2020, Apple Daily op-ed page, which featured the article “Hong Kong on the International Chessboard.” Among the articles published was “How Can There Be Peace Under the Gun?” by the author Yi Jian Piao Chen. The prosecution noted that Lai had read Yi’s first article in Apple Daily on June 24, 2020, titled “Don’t Confuse BLM with the Anti-Extradition Movement,” and subsequently asked Yeung to invite Yi Jian Piao Chen to write more articles. Lai confirmed this.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai did so because Yi Jian Piao Chen’s views aligned with Apple Daily’s editorial stance. Lai responded that Yi Jian Piao Chen had a theoretical background, which was not always the case for other writers. When pressed on whether he and Yi Jian Piao Chen shared the same political stance, Lai denied it. The prosecution further questioned whether Lai considered Yi Jian Piao Chen’s article to be well-written. Lai agreed but emphasized that appreciating an article did not mean he fully shared the author’s views. When asked which part of Yi Jian Piao Chen’s article he specifically agreed with, Lai stated that he had not given it further thought at the time.

14:40 Lai Confirms Reading All Articles by Ngan Shun-kau and Allan Au but Uncertain When He Received Newspapers in Detention

During the Monday afternoon adjournment, Jimmy Lai was granted permission to review 133 articles that he did not personally write, to determine whether he had read them at the time of the alleged offenses. The prosecution cited several articles, including the July 1, 2019, piece “Evil Law Not Withdrawn, Carrie Lam Not Stepped Down – Back to the Streets Today”, where Lai had marked a check symbol. In court, Lai confirmed that he had read the article at the time.

The prosecution then referenced articles from 2021, when Lai was already in detention. Among them were two opinion pieces by Apple Daily columnist Ngan Shun-kau (pen name: Fang Yuan), “Loyal to the Party, Inhumane: Hong Kong’s Decline Begins Here” (February 4, 2021) and “Biden Administration’s Foreign Policy Dilemma” (February 11, 2021), both of which Lai had also marked with a check. The prosecution asked whether Lai had read these while in detention. Lai responded that he had marked them because he habitually read all of Ngan’s articles but was unsure whether he had access to newspapers immediately after being detained. He added that he was later provided with newspapers but could not recall the exact date.

The prosecution also pointed to another article, “Incitement as a Legal Weapon”, by columnist Allan Au, which Lai had also checked. Lai explained that he consistently read all of Au’s articles but, again, could not confirm when he first received newspapers while in detention. Judge Susana D’Almada Remedios suggested checking Correctional Services records to determine when Lai was granted access to newspapers. The prosecution stated that they were in the process of retrieving these records and would first proceed with questioning regarding articles published before Lai’s detention.

14:34 Court in Session

The Witness