The trial of Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai, charged with “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces,” entered its 140th day Thursday at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Court, acting as the High Court. It marked Lai’s 48th day of testimony and the prosecution’s 22nd day of cross-examination.

On Wednesday, prosecutors questioned Lai about comments he made on his “Live Chat” program, where he said: “We just want to get rid of dictatorship.” Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked Lai to clarify his use of the word “dictatorship.” Lai responded that he was not referring to the Chinese Communist Party, saying: “Only the Chinese people can rid themselves of the CCP.” He added that under the One Country, Two Systems framework, he identifies as a Hong Konger, prompting further questions from the judge.

On Thursday, Lai clarified his remarks, explaining that when he said he was “not Chinese,” he meant he was not Mainland Chinese but rather a Hong Kong Chinese — a statement consistent with his earlier testimony. He added: “I love China as my country, but not as a state.”

The case is being heard by High Court judges designated under the National Security Law: Esther Toh Lye-ping, Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios, and Alex Lee Wan-tang. The prosecution is led by Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Anthony Chau Tin-hang and Senior Public Prosecutor Crystal Chan Wing-sum. Lai is represented by 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

15:39 Prosecution Questions Whether Mark Simon Had Insider Information from the U.S.; Lai Denies

The prosecution presented an interview Lai gave to Fox Business on July 1, 2020, with host Maria Bartiromo, in which Lai stated:

“I am not worried because I cannot be worried. If I worry, I won’t be able to do or say anything.”

The prosecution asked: “Were you not worried about the National Security Law?” Lai responded that he meant he ‘could not’ worry, because if he did, he wouldn’t be able to do or say anything.

The prosecution pressed further: “Was your intention to continue doing and saying whatever you wanted, regardless of the consequences of the National Security Law?” Lai replied that he intended to do so legally, not illegally.

The prosecution clarified: “I am asking if you meant you would continue, regardless of the consequences of the National Security Law?” Lai disagreed, stating: “I am not worried because I will not do anything illegal.”

The prosecution then presented a Signal message exchange between Lai and Maria Bartiromo on the same day, where Lai wrote:

“Thank you for inviting me. It was great to talk to the American people. We need all the help we can get from the U.S.”

The prosecution asked: “Why did you use Signal?” Lai explained that Signal was encrypted and more secure.

The prosecution followed up: “Did you want to communicate your views to the American people?” Lai agreed.

The prosecution then presented a July 2, 2020, WhatsApp conversation between Lai and Mark Simon:

Mark Simon:
“Mary says hello. She and her boss are watching you. She and he watched the Maria Interview, as did Bill Barr. There is an important request, and it’s from top. They want to see Cardinal. He is the figure that will resonate across all party lines. Is he up to travel?

I spoke with Cardinal and he really doesn’t want to come it sounds like to me as he’s worried they won’t let him travel. But there’s are some major league request to see him.“

Lai responded:
“I don’t think he wants to come out and shout at this time. He’s keeping a low profile. He still has too much to do and doesn’t want to jeopardize it if arrested. That’s the last conversation I had with him on Audrey’s funeral. Cheers. Jimmy“

Lai stated that “Mary” referred to Mary Kissel, an aide to then U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Bill Barr was former U.S. Attorney General.

The prosecution pointed out that Maria Bartiromo had told Lai in May 2020 that she had sent his interview footage to Trump, and now Mark Simon was saying that Pompeo and Mary Kissel were watching his interview. Wouldn’t this suggest that Mark Simon had insider information?”

Lai denied this, stating: “This is not insider information; the interview was public.”

The prosecution challenged: “The public wouldn’t know exactly when the U.S. government was watching an interview, would they?”

Lai countered: “So what?” and added that he had never asked Pompeo or Mary Kissel to watch his interview.

The prosecution pointed out: “But they were paying attention to you, and you already knew that at the time?”

Lai replied: “I only found out when Mark Simon told me that they were watching.”

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping noted that Mark Simon had mentioned a ‘high-level request’ and asked: “Wouldn’t that also be considered insider information?”

Lai responded: “That doesn’t mean it was insider information.”

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked: “So at that time, at least three senior U.S. officials had watched your interview?”

Lai replied: “I only knew about it after I was told.”

15:20 Lai Confirms He Did Not Remove Twitter Posts After the National Security Law Took Effect, As He Never Thought They Were Illegal

The prosecution presented a June 28, 2020 tweet from Lai’s Twitter account, which read:

“Carrie Lam, Elsie Leung, Teresa Cheng etc claims they don’t know the details of the #NSL. Perhaps they do so publicly so that they can use ignorance as a personal defense when they face sanctions in the future. “

Lai stated that this tweet was written by Simon Lee and remarked that he “had no right to disagree” with its content.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked: “What do you mean by ‘no right to disagree’?” Lai responded that he had to take responsibility for the tweet.

Judge Toh challenged this, stating: “Of course you had the right to disagree—this is your Twitter account.” Lai replied that the tweet was written by Simon Lee.

The prosecution then showed a related WhatsApp message from Simon Lee to Lai, containing the tweet’s draft. In response, Lai had replied ‘Great’.

The prosecution questioned: “Yet you claim you had no right to disagree?” Lai reiterated that he had no right to disagree.

Judge Toh, raising her voice, asked: “When you say you had ‘no right,’ do you mean you had no control? But this is your Twitter account, so you had the right and could post anything at any time?” Lai explained: “What I meant was that I had to take responsibility, so I had no right to disagree.”

Judge Toh pressed further: “You did have the right to disagree, yet in the message, you responded ‘Great’?”

The prosecution added: “You had the right to disagree because you owned the Twitter account.”

Lai responded: “I had no right to disagree because I had to take responsibility.”

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang noted that in the conversations between Lai and Simon Lee, it was mainly Lai who sent tweet drafts to Lee, and rarely the other way around.

Judge Lee asked: “So why did Simon Lee send you this particular tweet?” Lai replied that there was probably no special reason.

Judge Lee then pointed out that Simon Lee had previously suggested modifying tweets with stronger wording. Lai stated that he did not respond, leaving it to Simon Lee’s discretion.

The prosecution then displayed a WhatsApp exchange from two days later, where Lai sent Simon Lee a news article titled “Felix Chung Kwok-pan: The Business Sector Fears U.S. Harsh Sanctions.” This was followed by a corresponding tweet from Lai’s account, which read:

“Business people who support National Security Law, they worry they’d be sanctioned by by US. They should be. They should not be allowed to do business with U.S. companies.”

Additionally, on July 7, 2020, Lai’s Twitter posted:

“When a regime can no longer rule by reason, it rules by terror. “

The prosecution asked: “Do you agree that businesspeople who support the National Security Law should not be allowed to do business with U.S. companies?” Lai confirmed.

Judge Toh then asked: “Do you believe those who support the National Security Law should be sanctioned?” Lai confirmed.

The prosecution then asked: “Before the National Security Law was enacted, did you call for sanctions and adversarial actions against the Chinese and Hong Kong governments?” Lai stated that he had called for sanctions but had not called for adversarial actions.

The prosecution followed up: “Did you know at the time that under the National Security Law, calling for sanctions would be illegal?” Lai confirmed.

The prosecution then asked: “After the National Security Law was enacted, did you ever request the removal of these tweets from your Twitter account?” Lai responded that he had not, because these tweets were posted before the law took effect. He confirmed that he never requested their removal because he had never thought they were illegal.

15:15 Lai: I Take Responsibility for Tweets Written by Simon Lee but Do Not Necessarily Agree with All Their Content

The prosecution presented a June 27, 2020 tweet from Lai’s Twitter account, which stated:

“HK Gov took 20 hours to react to the passage of the Hong Kong Autonomy Act in the Senate. The statement didn’t mention even once #NSL, which is the reason why the world thinks #1C2S is changed and #CCP must be sanctioned for reneging the Joint Declaration.”

The tweet included a link to a Citizen News article.

The prosecution asked: “Is this your viewpoint?” Lai replied that it was not his personal viewpoint, but he confirmed that the tweet was posted with his consensus.

The prosecution further asked: “Do you agree that the CCP should be sanctioned for violating the Sino-British Joint Declaration?” Lai stated that Simon Lee did not need his approval to post tweets, but he took responsibility for their content.

The prosecution then pressed: “Do you personally agree with the tweet’s statement that the CCP should be sanctioned for violating the Sino-British Joint Declaration?”
Lai responded that he had never explicitly said the CCP violated the Joint Declaration, but regardless, he took responsibility for the tweet.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping questioned Lai: “Apart from taking responsibility, you previously testified that no matter what Simon Lee wrote, you would agree with it because he understood your views and you were closely aligned?”

Lai explained that Lee never sought his approval before posting tweets, but he would take responsibility for them.

Judge Toh challenged him further: “It’s not just about taking responsibility. By allowing Simon Lee to post on your Twitter account, does that mean you and Lee shared the same views?”

Lai confirmed this but emphasized that this did not mean he agreed with everything Lee thought.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios followed up: “Have you ever disagreed with a tweet written by Simon Lee?”

Lai responded: “I never expressed disagreement, but that does not mean I agreed with everything in the tweets.”

14:56 Tweet Stated One Should Not Succumb to CCP Bullying; Lai Confirms It Was Posted by Consensus

The prosecution continued questioning Lai about his Twitter posts, presenting a tweet from June 18, 2020, which read:

“Whether or not the world imposed sanctions on #China and revocation of #HK’s special status as an autonomous region depends on the objective standard, i.e. if the #NSL is imposed, #1C2S is dead and it leaves the world with no other option.”

The tweet included a link to an RTHK news article. Lai stated that the tweet was written by Simon Lee.

The prosecution asked: “Were you advocating that the world’s decision to sanction China should be based on whether the National Security Law was implemented?” Lai responded that this was his opinion, but he could not control how other countries acted.

The prosecution then asked: “Were you advocating that if the National Security Law was implemented, countries should sanction China, including revoking Hong Kong’s special status?” Lai confirmed.

The prosecution further asked: “Was this your viewpoint?” Lai confirmed.

The prosecution then cited a June 25, 2020 tweet:

“No one should kowtow to #CCP bullying. Release the evidence or release the two Michaels. Only terrorists will capture foreign citizens as hostage and bargain stakes. CCP cadres involved in such abuse of human rights should be sanctioned under the #MagnitskyAct.”

The prosecution pointed out that Simon Lee wrote the tweet and asked Lai whether he agreed with its content. Lai confirmed that the tweet was posted by mutual agreement between him and Lee.

The prosecution then asked: “Were you advocating for the use of the Magnitsky Act to sanction CCP officials?” Lai confirmed.

The prosecution further questioned: “But on the surface, this tweet does not seem related to the CCP?” Lai confirmed.

The prosecution then cited another tweet from the following day, June 26, 2020:

“Once the Hong Kong Autonomy Act is passed, anyone violating #1C2S will be sanctioned. Banks here to stop doing business with these people. I wonder if the Liaison Office has bank accounts in Hong Kong.”

The tweet included a link to a Bloomberg News article. Lai stated that the tweet was also written by Simon Lee.

The prosecution asked: “This tweet references the Hong Kong Autonomy Act. Did you know that the act was related to sanctions?” Lai replied that he could not recall if he knew at the time, but Simon Lee definitely knew.

The prosecution continued: “Did the sanctions include freezing bank accounts?” Lai responded: “The tweet does not mention that, so I don’t know.”

The prosecution pressed: “But the tweet says ‘banks will stop doing business with these people’?” Lai responded: “That does not necessarily mean freezing bank accounts.”

The prosecution then stated: “‘I wonder if the Liaison Office has bank accounts in Hong Kong’—isn’t this conceptually tied to sanctions and freezing bank accounts?” Lai denied this, stating that the content did not mention freezing accounts, only stopping business transactions.

12:53 Lunch

12:42 Tweet Described Huawei as a Symbol of CCP Overreach; Lai: It Did Not Advocate Sanctions

The prosecution presented messages between Lai and Fung Wai-kong on June 15, 2020. In these messages, Lai sent a news article about Huawei to Fung, instructing him to translate it into English for Simon Lee and post it on Twitter as soon as possible.

On the same day, Lai’s Twitter account posted the following tweet:

“Huawei is in deep trouble and it shows how effective target economic sanctions are Huawei is symbolic of #CCP’s overreach”

The tweet included a screenshot of a news report claiming that Huawei planned to lay off 50% of its workforce in China.

Lai stated that he agreed with the content of the tweet.

The prosecution asked: “Were you advocating targeted economic sanctions?”
Lai responded that he was not advocating sanctions but agreed with the content of Simon Lee’s tweet.

The prosecution then asked: “Did the tweet mention the National Security Law?” Lai agreed that it did not.

The prosecution further asked: “Was your intent to curb the CCP?” Lai replied that the tweet did not mention curbing the CCP.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked: “Does Simon Lee understand Chinese?” Lai confirmed that he does.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked: “Then why did Simon Lee need the article translated into English?” Lai responded that he did not know.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang pointed out: “It seems that Simon Lee did not wait for the translation before posting the tweet.” Lai agreed.

12:33 Prosecution Questions Whether Sanction-Advocating Tweets Were Unrelated to the National Security Law

The prosecution continued questioning Lai about his Twitter posts, presenting WhatsApp messages between Lai and Simon Lee (Lee Siu-fu) on June 11, 2020. In the messages, Lai sent Lee a front-page photo of Apple Daily, which carried the headline:

“Police Establish National Security Department, Enforce Law on First Day of Effect.”

Lai also included the following message:

“CCP seems to have watered down the national security law. Don’t be fooled. It just cools down the fury of sanctions. So they lose momentum and can’t be reinstated later when CCP pushes it hard on us again. CCP fears sanction is good reason to impose more harder sanctions.”

The prosecution then presented a corresponding Twitter post.

The prosecution asked: “At the time, were you advocating for harsher sanctions against the CCP?”
Lai confirmed.

The prosecution then showed another tweet:

“The dissents live in the US. The event was in the US. But @zoom_us said they were complying with the request by Chinese authorities. #CCP is going too far. US Gov should retaliate with sanctions on #CCP affiliated co. that sell out users privacy.”

The tweet included a news article titled: “Zoom Plan Will Enable China to Censor Individual Users.”

Lai stated that this tweet was written by Simon Lee.

The prosecution asked: “Do you agree with the content of the tweet?” Lai replied that he took responsibility for it.

The prosecution then asked: “Were you advocating for U.S. sanctions against the CCP?” Lai confirmed.

The prosecution continued: “Was this tweet unrelated to the National Security Law?” Lai argued that it was related to the National Security Law, stating that because the law was about to take effect, everyone was feeling tense and pressured, which led Simon Lee to write the tweet.

The prosecution challenged him: “But the content of the tweet was unrelated to the National Security Law, yet you were still calling for retaliatory sanctions against the CCP?” Lai reiterated that the tweet was written by Simon Lee.

12:20 Lai Confirms Advocating U.S. Sanctions on China to Weaken the National Security Law

The prosecution cited an interview Lai gave to Radio Free Asia (RFA) Cantonese on June 10, 2020, in which he stated that foreign countries should impose sanctions on China in an attempt to stop the implementation of the National Security Law, or, even if it were enacted, to weaken its effectiveness.

The prosecution asked: “Did you advocate for sanctions on China?” Lai confirmed.

The prosecution further questioned: “Did you advocate that even if the National Security Law was enacted, the U.S. should still impose sanctions to weaken its effect?” Lai confirmed, but clarified that he did not say sanctions must continue after the law was passed.

The prosecution then pointed out that during the same interview, Lai mentioned that then-U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump could use this issue as part of his campaign. Lai confirmed.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked: “At the time of this interview on June 10, were you aware of the details of the National Security Law?” Lai responded that he was not and confirmed that he only learned the specifics after it was enacted. He also acknowledged that he had read the content of the ‘May 28 Decision’ (528 Decision).

11:29 Break

11:05 Lai Denies Sacrificing China and Hong Kong’s Interests to Help Trump Win Re-election

On May 27, 2020, Lai retweeted a post by Maria Bartiromo about his interview. Lai stated that it was his assistant, Simon Lee, who reposted it.

That same day, Lai posted on Twitter:

“Thank you @MariaBartiomo for being so caring about me and about #HKers. We will continue our #Fightforfreedom, #CCPChina must change or it will be a threat to the freedom of the rest of the world. We must do what it takes and when we can.”

In another tweet that day, Lai wrote:

“There should be sanctions on #CCPChina officials who violate universal value of human rights. Nations should stop exporting technology. #CCPChina must play by the international rules.”

Lai confirmed that he wrote both tweets, with Simon Lee editing them.

The prosecution asked: “You stated that sanctions should be imposed on Chinese officials who violate human rights. Were you advocating for sanctions?”
Lai replied that he was not advocating, but merely stating a fact.

The prosecution challenged him: “You used the word ‘should,’ which indicates advocacy.” Lai responded, “You could say that,” but emphasized that sanctions had already been implemented by the U.S. at the time, and he was not calling for further action.

The prosecution then presented two May 27, 2020 tweets from Lai’s Twitter account:

“Mr President @realDonaldTrump. You’re a man of his words. You said if China passes the national security act there will serious consequences. (1/2)”

“The most effective sanction you can impose is to freeze Chinese officials’ bank accounts in US. Expose how corrupted they are. Your action will be much appreciated not only by #HKers but also the Chinese who suppressed by #CCP and every soul aspired to be free.”

The prosecution asked: “Did you advocate freezing bank accounts?” Lai responded: “I was referring specifically to the bank accounts of corrupt officials. I agree that this would be the most effective sanction.”

The prosecution asked: “Did you write both tweets?” Lai said that the wording sounded like it was written by Simon Lee, but agreed that he was responsible for them.

The prosecution then showed an interview Lai gave to the Hoover Institution on June 8, 2020, in which he said:

“I think the U.S. should sanction China, should punish China, otherwise there is no hope.”

Lai also stated that Trump, during his re-election campaign, was punishing China through sanctions and taking action to address the suffering and anger of Americans caused by the coronavirus pandemic, which originated in China.

The prosecution asked: “Did you want the U.S. to impose sanctions to punish China?” Lai confirmed, “Yes, to stop the National Security Law from taking effect.”

The prosecution then asked: “Were you willing to sacrifice China and Hong Kong’s interests to help Trump get re-elected?” Lai denied this, stating that he wanted Trump to help save Hong Kong.

The prosecution followed up: “But you brought up the coronavirus, which is unrelated to the National Security Law?” Lai responded: “If Trump understood my perspective, he would try to stop China from implementing the National Security Law. That was my entire goal.”

The prosecution challenged him: “Stopping the National Security Law and addressing American suffering from the coronavirus are two separate issues, aren’t they?” Lai explained that motivating Trump to act on the virus issue and helping Hong Kong to stop the National Security Law could both serve his re-election bid.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked: “So you were putting the two issues together (putting it in a package) to make it more appealing?” Lai agreed.

The prosecution asked: “Did you want to punish those responsible for these events?” Lai agreed but emphasized that he was referring to corrupt officials.

10:52 Lai Confirms He Advocated for Sanctions Before the National Security Law, Seeing It as One Way to Change China

The prosecution presented an interview Lai gave to Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo on May 26, 2020, where he discussed the impending implementation of the National Security Law. Lai stated that the law would have serious consequences and expressed hope that then-U.S. President Donald Trump would take action. He also remarked that Trump had always followed through on his words, and he had confidence in him.

The prosecution asked whether Lai intended to use Maria Bartiromo as a channel to convey a message to Trump. Lai denied this, stating that he merely hoped Trump would take action to save Hong Kong.

The prosecution then quoted another part of the interview, in which Lai said that then was the time to confront China. Changing China is the only way to change the world. If China is not changed, its values will remain completely at odds with the world, and global peace will not be possible. He further stated that Sanction them. Freeze corrupt officials’ bank accounts in the U.S. and around the world. Sanction their technology products, or stop sending technological products to China.

The prosecution asked if Lai was advocating for sanctions, freezing corrupt officials’ bank accounts, and sanctioning Chinese technology products. Lai responded that this interview took place before the National Security Law was enacted.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios instructed Lai to answer the question directly. Lai confirmed that he had advocated for sanctions.

The prosecution asked whether, at the time, Lai believed that sanctions were a method to change China or the Chinese Communist Party. Lai responded that sanctions were not the only method but were one of the methods.

The prosecution then presented a conversation between Lai and Maria Bartiromo from two days before the interview, in which Maria Bartiromo messaged Lai:

“I’m tweeting it out that you are joining me Tuesday exclusive. We will blast it out over”

Lai responded: “Thank you.”

On the day of the interview, Maria Bartiromo later messaged Lai:

“Thanks Jimmy. Really Well done. Pls come back soon. Let us know. I’m sending it to trump.”

Lai replied:

“We Hong Kong people are grateful for your help. Thanks.”

The prosecution asked if Lai knew that Maria Bartiromo had sent the interview clip to Trump. Lai replied that he knew when Maria Bartiromo told him.

10:46 Lai Denies Advocating for U.S. War Threats, Says He Was Merely Quoting a Former U.S. Official

The prosecution cited another statement from Lai on the “Live Chat” program:

“Paul Wolfowitz who recommend you to this Twitter and highly recommend it, and of the option that, if you have to stop a war, you have to threaten war. So the US has to threaten war to stop China daring to have a war in Taiwan. And I think that make sense. He used the Korean example, at that time that US was…”

The prosecution pointed out that Lai used Korea and the U.S. as examples, asking whether he was advocating for the U.S. to threaten war to prevent China from attacking Taiwan.

Lai responded that Paul Wolfowitz, the former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, had told him that to prevent war, the U.S. must threaten war.

The prosecution pressed further: “Did you want the U.S. to threaten war?” Lai denied this, stating that he was merely recounting what Paul Wolfowitz had told him in response to a question.

The prosecution then asked: “Do you agree with Paul Wolfowitz’s view?” Lai replied that he found the idea reasonable but emphasized that this did not mean he was advocating for it.

The prosecution asked again: “Do you agree with this idea?” Lai confirmed that he did.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang then questioned Lai directly: “Why did you personally attack Carrie Lam?”

Lai responded, “Because her job performance represents who she is.”

10:40 Prosecution Questions Lai’s Basis for Calling Xi Jinping an Absolute Dictator

The prosecution again referred to the same “Live Chat” program, quoting Lai:

“People at last or now at first realize that the Ant Groups’ IPO only two days before the share was issued. It was withdrawn. That shows that it is the rule of man, not rule of law. everything has gone through the legislative or judiciary or proceedings. So you know just because somebody said just stop it.”

The prosecution challenged Lai, arguing that the IPO withdrawal was a business decision and unrelated to “rule of man.” Lai countered that if a company had already completed all procedures, such a termination would never have happened in the past.

The prosecution asked if this was merely Lai’s speculation. Lai responded that he had read it in the newspapers.

The prosecution pressed further: “You only read the news but did not verify its accuracy?” Lai replied, “If everyone had to verify the news they read, no one would read the news—it would be too time-consuming.”

The prosecution questioned whether Lai assumed newspapers always verified facts. Lai replied, “That is the rule of journalism. Newspapers must fact-check and have more than one source before publishing.”

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping interjected: “Not everyone follows the rules, do they?” Lai responded, “I believe everyone does. If a media outlet makes mistakes, it will go out of business.”

The prosecution also cited Lai’s statement from the program: “Carrie Lam, I think she is a devil.”

Lai confirmed that this was his opinion.

The prosecution then asked if Lai’s remark was not about Carrie Lam’s performance but rather a personal attack. Lai replied, “I believe everyone knows what Carrie Lam has done.”

The prosecution questioned whether Lai wanted everyone to believe that Carrie Lam was truly a ‘devil’. Lai stated, “That is my opinion, but I did not expect everyone to agree with it.”

The prosecution pointed out that Lai made this statement publicly and in conversation with a foreigner. Lai responded, “I was merely expressing my own opinion.”

The prosecution accused Lai of inciting hatred against the government and Hong Kong officials. Lai denied the accusation, saying he was simply discussing Carrie Lam’s actions.

The prosecution claimed Lai was making a personal attack against Carrie Lam. Lai responded, “You can describe it that way.”

The prosecution then cited another statement from Lai on the program:

“We have to realise that Xi Jinping is the most absolute dictator of human history, just because even Mao Zedong, did not have such a powerful economy to support his actions. Second, no dictator in history had the kind of electronic technology to have that surveillance technology of watching every moment, every word and every action of its citizen.”

The prosecution asked how Lai knew this information. Lai replied, “Because this was happening in China at the time.”

The prosecution asked, “Did you read this in the news?” Lai responded, “China has electronic surveillance systems targeting its people.”

The prosecution questioned if this was Lai’s assumption. Lai denied this.

The prosecution pressed further, asking on what basis Lai made this claim. Lai stated, “Many media outlets reported on it.”

The prosecution again questioned whether Lai had personally verified the accuracy of these reports. Lai countered, “I don’t just read from one media outlet.”

The prosecution continued to challenge him: “But you did not verify it?” Lai retorted, “Am I expected to fact-check everything I read?”

The prosecution suggested that all of Lai’s criticisms of the central and Hong Kong governments were baseless. Lai disagreed, saying, “It is up to you to prove that, as I read these reports in the news.”

The prosecution further argued that Lai’s criticisms were intended to incite anti-government sentiment and instill fear among readers. Lai denied the claims.

The prosecution accused Lai of using his “Live Chat” program to provoke discontent among Hong Kongers, incite dissatisfaction toward both the central and Hong Kong governments, encourage citizens to seek extralegal means to change Hong Kong’s legally established order, and promote lawlessness.

Lai denied all allegations.

The prosecution finally asserted that Lai’s statements were not about correcting government mistakes, but rather inciting hatred toward the government.

Lai refuted this, arguing: “Criticizing the government makes authorities aware of public sentiment and, when necessary, pushes them to reform.”

10:30 Prosecution: Were Your Words Meant to Inspire Hong Kongers to Keep Fighting? Lai: I Wanted Them to Know I Would Not Back Down

The prosecution cited the transcript of the November 29, 2020 episode of “Live Chat”, quoting Lai:

“I think it’s also important for the Hong Kong people to listen to me just because if I don’t back down, they feel encouraged. I cannot back down, I can only keep going so they will keep going…..We have to go on and some of the people who are the symbol of Hong Kong’s resistance have to persist and go on because people are looking up to us. If we back down, they will back down and we are finished.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai wanted Hong Kongers to follow his lead and continue fighting. Lai responded that he wanted people to know he would not back down and hoped they would be encouraged to continue protesting.

The prosecution then asked if Lai saw himself as a “symbol.” Lai replied that he considered himself one of the representative figures in the resistance movement.

The prosecution followed up: “Is this resistance against the government?” Lai confirmed, stating that it was resistance to safeguard freedom and fight against its infringement.

The prosecution then asked: “Resistance against the National Security Law?” Lai answered, “The National Security Law is the main threat to freedom. You could put it that way.”

The prosecution pressed further: “Did you want people to join your cause to oppose the government and the National Security Law?”
Lai replied that he did not see it as opposition to the National Security Law because after its implementation, resistance had already become illegal, and protests had ceased. “Everything became just empty talk,” he said.

The prosecution asked what Lai actually wanted people to do. Lai responded: “Nothing at all. Looking back now, it was just empty talk—wishful thinking at the time.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai’s statement about “fighting for democracy” was also empty talk. Lai replied, “That is hindsight.”

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios clarified that the question was not about the present situation but rather about Lai’s thinking at the time.

The prosecution asked: “At the time, was it more than just empty talk?” Lai responded: “No, at the time, I believed there was still room for resistance. My intent was simply to protect freedom from being eroded.”

10:10 Lai Clarifies That He Meant He Is Not a Mainland Chinese, but a Hong Kong Chinese

As the court session began, Lai proactively clarified his Wednesday remarks regarding whether he identifies as Chinese or Hong Konger. Lai explained that when he stated he was not Chinese, he meant that he was not a Mainland Chinese, but rather a Hong Kong Chinese, which is consistent with his previous testimony during direct examination. Lai described, “China as my country, I love China, but not as a state.”

The prosecution continued questioning Lai regarding the “Live Chat” program on November 29, 2020, in which the guest was American journalist Nicholas Kristof. During the interview, Lai discussed the COVID-19 pandemic, stating:
“The reason the world has to suffer a loss of life and wealth, and still raging about it, is because there’s no freedom of speech in China.”
The prosecution challenged Lai, suggesting that he appeared to blame China entirely for the pandemic by saying that China lacks freedom of speech. Lai responded that if the doctor who first detected the virus had been able to share the information on social media, the government could have controlled the outbreak.

The prosecution asked, “Who was that doctor?” Lai replied that he was the first doctor who tried to share information about the outbreak on social media but was later reprimanded. The prosecution pressed further: “How do you know this?” Lai answered, “I read it in the news.” The prosecution then questioned how Lai could be sure the news was accurate. Lai responded, “Because it wasn’t just one media outlet reporting it—many media outlets did.” The prosecution pointed out that Lai was merely reading from the news and could not verify its authenticity. Lai stated, “I believe it to be true.” The prosecution countered, “That is just your assumption.” Lai replied, “It is an assumption based on strong evidence, because I read it in multiple news reports.”

The prosecution then argued that when Lai made public statements, he was relying on information from the news without verifying its accuracy. Lai responded that he could not fact-check better than the media outlets, as they have established journalistic practices.

The prosecution accused Lai of solely relying on media reports to blame China for the pandemic. Lai denied placing blame, stating that he was merely referring to information he read in the news.

Finally, the prosecution alleged that Lai was trying to incite anti-China sentiment. Lai reiterated that he was only citing news reports and emphasized that freedom of speech is crucial for ensuring transparency in society.

10:04 Court in Session

The Witness