The trial of Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai, who is charged with “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces” and other offenses, entered its 141st day on Friday (28th) at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Court (acting as the High Court). Lai testified for the 49th day, while the prosecution conducted its 23rd day of cross-examination.

Before questioning, Prosecutor Anthony Chau Tin-hang noted that at the adjournment on Thursday, some spectators shouted “Go Hong Kongers” and “Go Yellow-Skinned Hong Kongers.” He emphasized that all individuals in the courtroom must respect the court and follow court rules.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping stated that while the defendant and others remained inside the courtroom, members of the public must not disrupt court proceedings or express their feelings in any manner. She further instructed that the public must remain silent, warning that anyone disrupting court order would have their personal information recorded by security and could be asked to leave.

The prosecution added that the police had identified those who disrupted the proceedings and would liaise with security regarding the matter.

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 is represented by Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Anthony Chau Tin-hang and Senior Public Prosecutor Crystal Chan Wing-sum. Jimmy 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

15:52 Court Adjourns

15:35 Lai Denies Advocating for a Ban on Foreign Technology and Chips Entering China

The prosecution presented Jimmy Lai’s column article Taiwan Should Also Thank the Party, published on October 11, 2020. In the article, Lai wrote:

“The U.S. blockade on China’s high-tech and chip supply will also restrain the Western bloc, Japan, and Australia, preventing them from exporting high-tech and chips to China. This will greatly impact China’s economic development and technological research.”

The article further stated:

“Faced with comprehensive sanctions, China’s technological research and development will become even more difficult. Tech R&D cannot develop in isolation—it requires collaboration with other technologies. Without imported technological supplies and support, technological advancement will be even harder. Talented scientists will migrate to better opportunities, and tech R&D companies will relocate elsewhere. Taiwan, with its strong tech foundation and a complete semiconductor supply chain, is an ideal choice. However, for strategic reasons, Taiwan will prevent Chinese R&D firms from settling there, but it cannot stop the migration of Chinese tech professionals. Currently, high-tech companies from around the world are investing in Taiwan, creating a clustering effect that will attract more R&D firms, fostering Taiwan’s tech industry and transforming it into the Silicon Valley of Asia.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai, in his article, advocated for imposing tech sanctions on China.

Lai denied this, stating that he was not advocating but merely describing and analyzing the situation at the time.

The prosecution pointed out that Lai wrote:

“The U.S. blockade on China’s high-tech and chip supply will also restrain the Western bloc, Japan, and Australia, preventing them from exporting high-tech and chips to China.”

They asked whether Western countries were following the U.S. in imposing these sanctions.

Lai responded that Western countries could not continue operating without U.S. technology.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai wanted Western countries to follow the U.S. approach.

Lai replied that Western countries had already followed the U.S. lead, and reiterated that he was not in a position to “want” or “not want” anything—he was only describing and analyzing events.

The prosecution then pointed out that Lai repeatedly emphasized the potential damage caused by the tech embargo on China.

Lai responded that tech embargoes were a trending topic at the time, which is why he analyzed them in his articles and programs.

The prosecution alleged that Lai advocated for banning foreign technology and chips from entering China.

Lai disagreed.

Additionally, the prosecution pointed out that four days after the article was published, Lai discussed tech sanctions again on Live Chat, where his guest was former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.

The prosecution claimed that Lai advocated for sanctions against China and wanted the U.S. to continue tech sanctions during the program.

Lai denied this completely.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai believed Taiwan was important to the U.S..

Lai agreed, stating that Taiwan’s semiconductor industry was crucial to the U.S.

The prosecution then suggested that Lai wanted to enhance Taiwan’s interests and use it as leverage against China.

Lai responded that this was not mentioned in the program and emphasized that sanctions were unrelated to Taiwan.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang questioned whether Lai’s statement that Taiwan would become the “Silicon Valley of Asia” would make the U.S. more interested in “protecting” Taiwan.

Lai responded that he was saying that sanctions themselves were unrelated to Taiwan but agreed that they could ultimately benefit Taiwan.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai wanted China to be sanctioned to enhance Taiwan’s status.

Lai replied, “I never said that.”

15:19 Prosecution Challenges Lai, Arguing That His Program Remarks on Tech Sanctions Were Not Just Statements of Fact but Also Expressed Opinions

The prosecution presented an October 1, 2020 episode of Live Chat, where the guests were Mark Clifford and U.S. scholar Michael Auslin. The discussion focused on U.S. technology sanctions against China, mentioning that Taiwan could become the biggest leverage against China. It was also noted that European countries heavily relied on U.S. technology, and they might follow the U.S. in imposing tech sanctions on China. The discussion suggested that if China faced tech sanctions, its technological research would undergo significant changes.

The prosecution asked whether Lai wanted foreign countries to impose a tech embargo and sanctions on China.

Lai responded that the U.S. had already implemented a tech embargo, and other European countries were also following suit.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai wanted European countries to follow suit.

Lai replied that they were already doing so, and countered, “How could I want them to follow if they were already following?”

The prosecution argued that Lai was not merely stating facts but also expressing an opinion, pointing out that Lai had said, “What the U.S. is doing for Taiwan is the right thing to do.”

Lai responded that the measures were already in place at the time, and that he was only making a comment, not advocating for them to continue.

The prosecution asked whether Lai wanted the U.S. to continue imposing tech sanctions on China.

Lai responded, “I have no authority to decide that,” and added that he never thought about making anyone do anything. He stated, “I am not in a position to want or not want.”

The prosecution pressed further, asking again whether Lai wanted the U.S. to continue imposing tech sanctions on China.

Lai replied that at the time, he neither wanted nor did not want it.

The prosecution then pointed out that Lai had made the same argument during the September 24 episode of Live Chat.

Lai reiterated, “I was not in the right position to think about it.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai hoped the U.S. would continue implementing tech sanctions against China.

Lai disagreed, stating, “What right do I have to want that?”

14:32 Prosecution: “Do You Support Tech Sanctions Against China?” Lai Denies, Says He Was Merely Stating Facts

The prosecution announced it would begin questioning on the topic of ‘tech sanctions’ and presented a transcript from the September 24, 2020, Live Chat program. The guests were former South China Morning Post editor-in-chief Mark Clifford and U.S. scholar Thomas Shattuck.

During the discussion, Jimmy Lai stated that Taiwan’s status would rise as its relationship with the U.S. strengthened. He cited U.S. sanctions, saying that sanctions forced China to rely more on Taiwan in many areas. Lai further commented that if knowledge and technology sanctions were imposed on China, Taiwan could become the ‘Silicon Valley of Asia.’

The prosecution asked whether Lai was suggesting that U.S. tech sanctions on China caused Chinese startups to struggle and relocate to Taiwan.

Lai agreed, stating that this was his opinion.

The prosecution then asked if this would strengthen Taiwan’s role in the tech industry.

Lai agreed.

The prosecution asked if this would make Taiwan more important.

Lai responded that Taiwan was already important to the U.S. due to its significant status in Asia and its role as part of an alliance (“chain”).

The prosecution asked what he meant by “part of an alliance.”

Lai explained that Taiwan was one of the members of an international alliance.

The prosecution asked if Lai believed at the time that Taiwan’s status should be elevated to align with the U.S. in countering China.

Lai agreed.

The prosecution then referred to Lai’s statement:

“I think all countries must help Taiwan because they all face the same enemy.”

The prosecution asked who “the enemy” referred to.

Lai responded that it was the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

The prosecution cited another statement from Lai in the program:

“Taiwan is a great leverage. If Taiwan falls, U.S. credibility will fall. It would be like Berlin during the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Therefore, the U.S. and all free-world countries must unite and work hard to support Taiwan’s status. This is very important.”

The prosecution then asked whether Lai supported tech sanctions as a means of countering China.

Lai denied this, stating that the U.S. had already implemented tech sanctions at that time. He also pointed out that Europe had not imposed tech sanctions, and he believed that countries should unite in negotiations with China.

The prosecution asked whether Lai advocated for Europe and other countries to align with the U.S. in counterbalancing China.

Lai agreed, adding that countries were already doing so at the time.

The prosecution asked whether Lai wanted countries to continue this approach.

Lai responded that he was only stating facts—countries were already doing so.

The prosecution then referred to a question posed by Mark Clifford during the program, where Clifford asked whether the Trump administration’s use of tech measures to counter China’s military power was too late.

Lai had responded:

“I think it’s not too late. I think first by sanctioning the chips to China.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai believed it was “not too late.”

Lai responded that he was merely stating facts.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai wanted the U.S. to continue implementing tech sanctions.

Lai said he never stated that he wanted them to continue, emphasizing that he was only analyzing the situation.

The prosecution then pointed out that Lai had stated in the program:

“If the U.S. imposes a tech embargo, all Western countries will follow suit because all Western countries rely on U.S. technology.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai wanted the tech embargo to continue.

Lai responded by asking:

“Where did I say I wanted the tech embargo to continue?”

He reiterated that he was only explaining and analyzing the situation.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping then asked whether Lai agreed that he wanted the tech embargo to continue.

Lai disagreed and responded:

“You are so funny.”

12:45 Lunch

12:30 Prosecution Claims Lai Repeatedly Called for Sanctions on Officials After National Security Law; Lai: “I Only Believe They Should Be Held Accountable”

The prosecution presented a December 1, 2020 Twitter post from Jimmy Lai, which read:

“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 the measures may seem inconveniences in small ways.”

Lai also shared an Apple Daily article quoting former Chief Executive Carrie Lam, who said:

“I have piles of cash at home because of U.S. sanctions.”

Lai stated that this post was written by Simon Lee and confirmed that he had not asked for it to be taken down.

The prosecution then pointed out that during direct examination, Lai had testified that he believed sanctions were ineffective, yet his Twitter post suggested otherwise.

Lai responded that he did not remember his testimony in direct examination but acknowledged that his Twitter post stated that sanctions had some effectiveness, albeit with minor inconveniences.

The prosecution then displayed an August 7, 2020 conversation between Lai and Simon Lee:

Simon Lee:
“The Department of the Treasury imposed sanctions on 11 individuals for undermining Hong Kong’s autonomy and restricting the freedom of expression or assembly of the citizens of Hong Kong.”

Treasury is sanctioning Carrie Lam, Chris Tang, Stephen Lo, John Lee Ka-chiu, Teresa Cheng, Erick Tsang, Xia Baolong, Zhang Xiaoming, Luo Huining, Zheng Yanxiong, and Eric Chan.

Simon Lee:
“I haven’t tweeted. But we can just tweet the news and the excerpt.”

Jimmy Lai:
“That’s great! Thanks!”

“But how about those election PRO(主任）？Should they be personally responsible for DQ candidates for political reasons?”

The prosecution asked whether, in addition to the sanctioned officials, Lai also wanted election officers to be sanctioned.

Lai responded that he was raising a question about whether election officers had been sanctioned.

The prosecution pointed out that election officers were not on the sanctions list.

Lai confirmed that Twitter did not mention them.

The prosecution then presented a Twitter post from the following day, August 8, 2020, in which Lai’s account retweeted an Apple Daily post stating:

“#CarrieLam and other top officials has been sanctioned by the #UnitedStates for undermining #HongKong’s autonomy and restricting the freedom of expression or assembly of the citizens of #HongKong “

The prosecution then pointed out that on the same day, Lai’s Twitter account also posted:

“How about those election officers （選舉主任）who disqualified #DQ the candidates nominations? Should they be personally responsible for making the decisions?”

The prosecution asked whether Lai was calling for election officers to be sanctioned.

Lai responded: “Yes.”

The prosecution then asserted that Lai repeatedly called for sanctions against Hong Kong and Chinese officials after the National Security Law was enacted.

Lai insisted that he merely believed these officials should be held accountable and that he had not explicitly mentioned sanctions.

The prosecution challenged Lai, reminding him that when asked earlier whether he wanted election officers to be sanctioned, he had answered “Yes.”

The defense intervened, saying they heard Lai say “Yes, no, yes.”

The prosecution, however, claimed that he said “Yes, well, yes.”

The prosecution again pressed whether Lai had repeatedly called for sanctions against Hong Kong and Chinese officials after the National Security Law came into effect.

Lai reiterated that he only believed they should be held accountable.

12:25 Prosecution Asks Whether Lai Believed Sanctions Brought Hope; Lai: “It Felt Like Someone Was Speaking Up for Us”

The prosecution presented Jimmy Lai’s column article Encirclement of China: Biden Stuck on a Tiger’s Back, published on November 29, 2020. In the article, Lai wrote:

“In this U.S. presidential election, the people most eager for Trump’s re-election were likely those in Hong Kong and Taiwan. The reason is simple: both face suppression from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and share a common enemy. Trump’s tough stance against the CCP feels like he is standing up for us, giving us a sense of security and a powerful ally. Trump revoked Hong Kong’s special trade status, cutting off the CCP’s emergency backdoor to the U.S. in case of a conflict, weakening the CCP’s flexibility in trade, diplomacy, and politics. He also sanctioned certain officials who aided in the CCP’s crackdown on Hong Kongers, forcing them to bear personal losses and making other potential participants in the crackdown think twice. This, to some extent, constrained the CCP’s reckless suppression of Hong Kongers under the National Security Law, allowing those struggling to breathe under its oppression to feel like someone was standing up for us and giving them hope.”

The prosecution asked whether “allowing those struggling to breathe under the oppression of the National Security Law to feel like someone was standing up for us and giving them hope” included Lai himself.

Lai agreed.

The prosecution asked whether Lai was referring to officials who might participate in the crackdown having second thoughts due to the sanctions.

Lai responded that he was only stating what had already happened.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai believed sanctions had the effects described in his article.

Lai agreed.

The prosecution pressed further, asking whether Lai wanted sanctions to continue.

Lai responded that his article did not state this, reiterating that he was merely describing events that had already taken place and that “it felt like someone was standing up for us,” which gave people hope.

The prosecution asked whether Lai, at the time, believed that sanctions brought hope.

Lai responded that he had not thought about it in that way, clarifying that he had simply written “it felt like someone was standing up for us and giving them hope.”

12:08 Prosecution Claims Lai Advocated Sanctions Against Hong Kong Officials Through His Posts; Lai Denies

The prosecution presented a July 23 Twitter post by Jimmy Lai, in which he shared an Apple Daily article titled:

“Firms with Hong Kong ties face US sanctions, linked to human rights abuses in Xinjiang.”
Lai also wrote:

“The most effective way to prevent human rights violations is to hold people who do the heinous act personally accountable.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai had taken down the post.

Lai responded that he had not.

The prosecution then presented a September 17 Twitter post by Lai, which referenced a report about New People’s Party legislator Regina Ip withdrawing her assets from the U.S.:

“When America and the rest of the free world are aligned and put in place the sanctions. CCP’s accomplices have nowhere to turn, and their assets have nowhere to hide. Their evil deeds persecuting of HKers will have consequences.”

Lai stated that this post was written by Simon Lee, and that he had not taken it down.

The prosecution asked whether the term “accomplices” in the post referred to Hong Kong officials.

Lai responded that he did not know, as the post was written by Simon Lee, but acknowledged that he agreed with its general content.

The prosecution then asked if “CCP’s accomplices have nowhere to turn, and their assets have nowhere to hide” was referring to travel restrictions.

Lai replied that the post did not mention travel.

The prosecution pointed out that during Day 113 of the trial, Lai had testified that the phrase was related to travel visas.

Lai denied having said the word “travel.”

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked whether Lai had mentioned “travel”.

The defense clarified that Lai had only said “visa,” not “travel.”

The judge reviewed the court records, which showed that Lai had in fact said “travel visa.”

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang questioned why the prosecution was asking Lai about his interpretation of someone else’s post.

The prosecution responded that it was relevant to their agreement on the content.

Judge Lee asked how Lai’s response could assist the prosecution’s case.

The prosecution argued that since the post was published on Lai’s Twitter account, it indicated that Lai and Simon Lee had a mutual understanding.

Judge Lee clarified that the prosecution was asking about Lai’s understanding of the post.

The prosecution explained that they were trying to determine Lai’s state of mind at the time.

The prosecution further asserted that the post was related to the consequences of sanctions, asking whether “CCP’s accomplices have nowhere to turn, and their assets have nowhere to hide” meant that they could not travel.

Lai responded that it referred to difficulty obtaining visas.

The prosecution then pointed out that in his earlier testimony, Lai had stated that the sanctioned individuals would face difficulties engaging with the Western world, such as opening foreign bank accounts and obtaining travel visas.

Lai explained that his previous response was merely speculation, as he had not written the post himself.

The prosecution asked whether Lai disputed that the post implied that sanctions would prevent individuals from opening foreign bank accounts and obtaining travel visas.

Lai agreed but reiterated that this was only speculation.

The prosecution then asked whether this interpretation was Lai’s understanding of the post.

Lai agreed.

The prosecution further asked whether restricting foreign bank accounts and travel visas was a form of sanction.

Lai responded that he never explicitly said that, emphasizing that he did not write the post.

The prosecution concluded by alleging that Lai had used the post to advocate for sanctions against Hong Kong officials.

Lai disagreed.

11:18 Break

11:05 Prosecution Claims Lai Intended to Call for Sanctions on Twitter; Lai: “Sanctions Were Already in Place—I Was Merely Stating Facts”

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked why Lai did not simply stay away from the red lines of the National Security Law. Lai responded:

“When you stand up to try to fight on to keep the freedom, you cannot move yourself very far away from it.”

Judge Lee then asked whether Lai was prepared to take risks. Lai confirmed this but reiterated: “If certain actions were clearly illegal, I wouldn’t be stupid enough to do them.”

Judge Lee then questioned whether Lai was “playing on the edge” of the law. Lai confirmed that he was.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios followed up, asking whether crossing the red line would constitute illegal behavior. Lai responded that he did not know whether his actions were illegal, but given the ambiguity of the red lines, he was willing to take the risk.

The prosecution argued that Lai had deliberately chosen to take risks, contradicting his previous testimony where he claimed he would act cautiously. Lai stated that he had exercised as much caution as possible, but he could not eliminate the uncertainty caused by the lack of transparency.

The prosecution then accused Lai of continuing to seek international support even after the National Security Law came into effect.

The prosecution presented a July 22, 2020 exchange between Lai and Simon Lee. In the messages, Lee informed Lai:

“US demands China to close its Houston embassy.”

Lai responded:

“Trump is using a series of sanctions exacted against China as his campaign strategy. Very smart. While Biden can only say, he acts. Action is louder than words!”

The prosecution pointed out that Lai had admitted during direct examination that he originally intended for Simon Lee to post this on Twitter.

The prosecution further claimed that Lai continued to support sanctions against China.

Lai countered that he was merely stating facts, not advocating for sanctions, as the sanctions were already in place.

The prosecution asked whether Lai wanted these measures to continue.

Lai responded that he never said he wanted them to continue, emphasizing that Trump had already taken these actions.

The prosecution then questioned whether Lai supported these measures.

Lai replied that he had simply described Trump’s actions as “very smart.”

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang pointed out that Lai had said, “Action is louder than words,” implying that he believed action was more effective.

Lai confirmed that he believed Biden only talked but did not act.

The prosecution then presented a July 23, 2020 tweet from Lai:

“Trump is taking actions through different measures while Biden can only claim. Action is louder than words!”

Lai had also retweeted a post from Apple Daily’s Twitter account:

“@appledaily_hk – Jul22 The U.S. has given Beijing 72 hours to close down its consulate in Houston, according to Chinese authorities who condemned the unprecedented move and threatened retaliation.”

The prosecution asked whether Simon Lee had preserved Lai’s original intent in his messages—specifically, supporting U.S. actions against China.

Lai responded that these events had already happened, and thus, there was no need for him to “support” them.

The prosecution then showed another July 22, 2020 message from Lai to Simon Lee, in which Lai wrote:

“The is one of the most effective way to prevent human rights violations is to hold people who do the heinous act personally accountable.”

Lai also attached an Apple Daily article titled:
“Firms with Hong Kong ties face U.S. sanctions, linked to human rights abuses in Xinjiang.”

The prosecution asked if Lai’s reference to “one of the most effective ways” was referring to U.S. sanctions.

Lai confirmed this.

The prosecution then asked if Lai had intended for Simon Lee to post the message on Twitter.

Lai confirmed this but emphasized that he did not explicitly mention sanctions.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang pointed out that Lai had attached a relevant news article about U.S. sanctions.

Lai argued that the news had nothing to do with him.

Judge Lee questioned whether Lai was suggesting that holding corporations accountable was not enough and that individuals should also be held responsible.

Lai responded that if a company is held accountable, its individuals must also be responsible, as companies are made up of people.

The prosecution pressed further, asking whether holding companies accountable implied supporting sanctions.

Lai denied this, stating, “I never said that.”

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked what Lai meant by “one of the most effective ways to prevent human rights violations.”

Lai responded that the most effective way was to ensure individuals were held accountable.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios challenged Lai, noting that five minutes earlier, he had confirmed his response, but was now evading the question.

Lai claimed that he might have misheard and reiterated that he was simply stating his own message.

The prosecution accused Lai of intending to call for sanctions through Twitter.

Lai disagreed, insisting that the sanctions had already taken place and that his message was different.

The prosecution further alleged that Lai wanted the sanctions to continue.

Lai denied this, stating:

“I never said that. Stop putting words in my mouth.”

11:00 Lai Admits Taking Risks in the Gray Area of the National Security Law but Would Not Continue Doing Clearly Illegal Acts

The prosecution presented the transcript of a November 20, 2020 conversation between Jimmy Lai and former Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Natan Sharansky. In the discussion, Lai stated:

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

The prosecution asserted that Lai had repeatedly stated in different settings that despite the risks posed by the National Security Law, he remained determined to persist as usual.

Lai refuted this, clarifying that his remarks did not imply engaging in illegal acts. He explained that the risk of the National Security Law lay in its vague red lines, and that if an action were clearly illegal, he would not continue doing it.

The prosecution then pointed out that Lai had mentioned in the interview that speaking with foreigners could be considered a “big crime.”

Lai responded that such interactions could be misinterpreted as collusion, but he also thought at the time that he was simply talking to foreigners, not colluding with them.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked whether Lai was taking a risk at the time. Lai confirmed that he was, but reiterated that he was not colluding.

Judge Lee then asked if Lai believed he might have violated the National Security Law. Lai maintained that he was merely conversing with foreigners and was not colluding.

Lee pressed further: “So there was actually no risk?”

Lai replied: “I didn’t know how this action would be interpreted.”

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping questioned Lai’s stance, pointing out that while Lai acknowledged that speaking with foreigners might be perceived as collusion, he still chose to take the risk, which seemed inconsistent with his earlier statements.

Lai reiterated that he did not consider speaking with foreigners to be collusion, but acknowledged that it could be perceived as such due to the unclear red lines of the National Security Law.

Judge Toh pressed further: “Even if you believed it might be seen as collusion and illegal, you still insisted on doing it?”

Lai responded that the action could be misinterpreted, again citing the vagueness of the National Security Law’s red lines. However, he conceded that while he was willing to take risks in the gray areas of the law, when it came to clearly illegal actions, he stated:

“How could I possibly do that?”

10:40 Prosecution Claims Lai Intended to Continue the Same Actions After National Security Law; Lai: “Don’t Think I’m an Idiot”

The prosecution presented the transcript of “A Conversation with Jimmy Lai at the Napa Institute 2020 Summer Conference” from October 6, 2020. In the interview, the host asked Lai, a British citizen, why he chose to stay in Hong Kong.

Lai recalled that after being arrested in August and detained in a holding center, where he slept on the floor, he asked himself: “If I knew I would be imprisoned, would I still do the same thing?”

He quickly answered himself: “Yes, I would do the same thing because this is my way, this is my character. If character is destiny.”

He explained that if he left Hong Kong, he would not only be abandoning his destiny but also abandoning God and his faith: “If I cannot change it, I must accept my faith.”

The prosecution argued that this statement demonstrated Lai’s intent to continue his previous course of action.

Lai refuted this, asserting that he was only looking back at the past and reaffirmed that he would not engage in illegal activities. He then questioned the prosecution: “Do you think I’m crazy?”

The prosecution asked if Lai was fabricating this explanation on the spot. Lai denied the accusation.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked whether Lai had previously stated that he did not believe the National Security Law had retroactive effect. Lai agreed but clarified that this did not mean he would engage in illegal activities.

The prosecution pressed further, claiming that Lai had always intended to continue doing what he had done before the National Security Law, even if those actions became illegal under the law.

Lai responded: “Don’t think that I’m an idiot. Don’t think that I’m mentally retarded.”

Separately, Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping raised a question about Lai’s interview remarks, where he described COVID-19 as ‘a Pearl Harbor moment.’ She asked where he got this idea.

Lai stated that it was a reference made by former South China Morning Post editor-in-chief Mark Clifford during a Live Chat program.

Judge Toh asked whether Lai subsequently adopted the phrase.

Lai confirmed that he had.

10:24 Judge Questions Whether Lai’s Article Portrayed Arbitrary Police Searches and Unconstitutional Actions; Lai: “I Only Described What I Saw”

The prosecution presented Jimmy Lai’s column article Continuing to Suppress Hong Kong, or Sacrificing Oneself for the Country?, published on September 27, 2020. The article stated:

“Two hundred police officers stormed into Apple Daily’s building, ransacking files and documents—this was an abuse of police power infringing on press freedom, aimed at instilling fear in the media. After this incident, which media outlet would dare not to toe the line? Some say that ‘anti-China, destabilizing Hong Kong’ Next Digital has not yet been shut down and still follows its usual editorial direction, proving that press freedom still exists in Hong Kong. Yes, we continue operations as usual, but every day we face the risk of arrests and forced closure. When you have to write or speak in constant fear, are you still free? True freedom is being able to speak without fear.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai had stated “we continue operations as usual.” Lai agreed but added, “But every day we are facing the risk of apprehension and mandatory closure.”

The prosecution asked if this “as usual” operation was Lai’s intended mindset at the time. Lai clarified that while operations continued, the content had to change—his use of “as usual” did not mean continuing exactly as before, because what was legal before the National Security Law had since become illegal.

The prosecution pointed out that Lai had not explicitly stated this distinction in his article. Lai responded, “I believe everyone understands the situation under the National Security Law,” and reiterated that illegally operating the newspaper would be absurd.

The prosecution cited another passage from the article: “Some say that ‘anti-China, destabilizing Hong Kong’ Next Digital has not yet been shut down and still follows its usual editorial direction, proving that press freedom still exists in Hong Kong.” The prosecution asked if this referred to Apple Daily’s editorial policy. Lai agreed but emphasized that this was done legally, not illegally, stating, “We are not a crime company.”

The prosecution questioned why none of Lai’s explanations were reflected in his article. Lai responded that an article cannot include every detail and reiterated that it was clear to everyone that running an illegal operation was impossible. He challenged the prosecution, saying, “How would one even operate illegally? You tell me.”

The prosecution asked whether Lai had only come up with this explanation today in court. Lai replied that this was his original intent when he wrote the article, emphasizing that by then, the National Security Law was already in effect, making illegal operations impossible. “How could we possibly operate illegally?” he asked.

The prosecution then cited another passage from Lai’s article:
“When you have to write or speak in constant fear, are you still free? True freedom is being able to speak without fear.”

The prosecution asked whether the National Security Law was not a concern for Lai. He responded that, of course, he was concerned, but even when operating legally, it was impossible to be 100% certain that one would not break the law, as the red lines were unclear.

The prosecution argued that Lai’s statement—”every day we face the risk of arrests and forced closure”—indicated an intention to continue running Apple Daily as usual, including maintaining its reporting and editorial policies despite the consequences of the National Security Law. Lai disagreed, stating, “We would not commit suicide,” and reiterated that the red lines were unclear and operating under the National Security Law carried risks.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping raised concerns about another passage in Lai’s article:
“Two hundred police officers stormed into Apple Daily’s building, ransacking files and documents—this was an abuse of police power infringing on press freedom… The police then brazenly amended the definition of ‘media representatives’ in the Police General Orders, effectively turning the Government Information Service into a licensing body for journalists. This allowed police power to dominate the government and override the law… But what does it matter if it’s unconstitutional? The police reign supreme! So what?”

Lai responded that this was his opinion.

Judge Toh questioned whether this opinion was based on erroneous facts, stating, “It is clearly an opinion based on erroneous facts,” because when police entered Next Digital’s building, they were acting under a court-issued search warrant. She asked whether Lai intended to create the impression for readers that the police had conducted arbitrary, unconstitutional searches. Lai denied this, stating that he was merely describing what he had witnessed.

The prosecution pointed out that Lai’s article did not mention that the police had obtained a search warrant or that their actions were lawful, instead portraying them as acting above the law. Lai disagreed.

The prosecution stated that it would present another example of Lai making false accusations against the police. Before they could continue, Lai interrupted, stating, “I do not believe my claims were baseless, because at the time, Apple Daily was the first media outlet to be searched by 200 police officers.”

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang then interjected, noting that Sing Tao Daily had also been searched by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) in the past.

10:10 Prosecution Asks Whether Apple Daily Was to Operate as Usual After National Security Law; Lai Disagrees with the Term “As Usual”

The prosecution presented Jimmy Lai’s column article, Hongkongers Suffocating: Escape or Resist, published on June 14, 2020, and pointed out that Lai mentioned the government had violated the Sino-British Joint Declaration. Lai stated he did not remember. The prosecution then noted that the article mentioned avoiding social dissatisfaction caused by the government’s failure to honor the Sino-British Joint Declaration.

The prosecution continued, citing Lai’s remarks during an August 18, 2020, Live Chat program:
“Will I still do the same thing, will I still go the same way? And it almost immediately came to my mind that, yes, I would because this is my character.”

The prosecution asked whether, after his arrest at that time, Lai intended to continue. Lai responded that he did not say he wanted to continue, explaining that in the Live Chat, he was speaking retrospectively—he would have made the same choices when looking back, but he was not referring to the future.

The prosecution further asked if Lai meant he would act the same way if similar circumstances arose again. Lai denied saying that. Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping remarked that Lai’s answer seemed somewhat ambiguous. Lai reiterated that his statement referred to looking back on the past and emphasized that it was not about the future.

Lai was also quoted in the program saying:
“A lot of people now still stand up, like myself, Apple Daily, we still stand up and go on our business and keep going and keep fighting.”

Lai explained that he was aware that what had been done in the past had become illegal, and it was clearly impossible to continue.

The prosecution asked whether Lai had stated that Apple Daily was operating as usual. Lai denied saying so and insisted that he would not operate Apple Daily illegally, adding that the prosecution could not impose the term “as usual” on him.

Judge Toh asked if Lai disagreed with the term. Lai replied, “Of course, I disagree.”

Toh stated that the prosecution was merely outlining the case as part of its duty and that Lai only needed to answer “yes” or “no”, adding, “Otherwise, we’ll still be here next year. Please keep your answers brief and patient.”

Lai stressed that he was not saying Apple Daily had to operate as usual. Toh reiterated that the prosecution was presenting the case as part of the legal proceedings. Lai, however, argued that while outlining the case was one thing, imposing certain wording on him was another, before saying, “OK, OK.”

10:07 Spectators Shouted “Go Hong Kongers” Before Court Adjourned Yesterday; Prosecution Urges Respect and Will Liaise with Security

Before questioning, Prosecutor Anthony Chau Tin-hang pointed out that as the court adjourned yesterday, some spectators loudly shouted “Go Hong Kongers” and “Go Yellow-Skinned Hong Kongers.” He emphasized that everyone inside the courtroom must respect the court, follow court rules, and maintain solemnity.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping stated that while the defendant and others were still present in the courtroom, members of the public must not disrupt court proceedings or express their feelings in any manner.

Toh further stressed that the public must remain silent, and any disruption of court order would result in security recording the individual’s personal information and requiring them to leave the courtroom. The prosecution added that the police had identified those who disrupted court order and would liaise with security regarding the matter. The court interpreter translated Toh’s remarks into Chinese and conveyed them to the public.

10:06 Court in Session

The Witness