Trial began December 18, 2023. Support Jimmy Lai today.

Show your support by using the hashtag #FreeJimmyLai

Day 61: April 16, 2024

The Witness: Live Update | Jimmy Lai’s Trial Day 61 Chan Tsz-wah: Mark Simon Requested Meeting with U.S. Senator

Media tycoon Jimmy Lai, founder of Next Digital and related companies including Apple Daily, faced charges of “conspiring with foreign forces” and other crimes. The trial, now in its 61st day, took place at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts (acting as the High Court) on Tuesday. The fifth “accomplice witness,” Chan Tsz-wah, testified for the third day, stating that Mark Simon had mentioned the possibility of conducting “civilian lobbying” and had also arranged for him to meet with a U.S. senator to discuss the situation in Hong Kong. Chan invited Andy Li and young people from the “frontline” to attend.

On Monday, Chan testified that he first met with Jimmy Lai in July 2019. At that time, Lai requested his assistance in contacting the leaders of the “valiants” because their violent protests were creating scenes that were “not pretty,” which could lead to Hong Kong losing international support. Therefore, Lai proposed a “purification plan,” which involved contacting the leaders of the “valiants” to urge them to “restrain” themselves. Chan expressed difficulty in determining who belonged to the “valiants” and ultimately said he was unable to make contact.

16:13 Adjournment

16:00 Chan: Lai Mentioned Combining Street, Council, and International Forces to Pressure the Government to Respond to Citizens’ Demands.

Messages from November 27, 2019, showed Lai saying, “Since the PolyU incident, I have been thinking the same. It’s time to organize a leadership team. After my discussion with the democratic camp on Wednesday, can you gather a few peers to discuss?” and “I want to hear your opinion before meeting with the democrats tonight.” Chan agreed. He explained in court that Lai wanted him to be part of this leadership team and also wanted him to find some like-minded people to discuss with. That day was also the third time he met with Jimmy Lai.

Chan said they were chatting in a parked car on the road to the Admiralty Courts. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if parking there was against regulations. Chan agreed. He continued that when they met, Lai’s driver got out of the car, and he also handed over his cell phone. Chan told Lai that he couldn’t contact the leaders of the “valiants” at that time. But after the incidents at CUHK and PolyU, Chan found someone who claimed to know the leaders of the “valiants” and had a conversation with them.

Chan recalled that the person who claimed to know the leaders of the “valiants” thought his idea of having a “big stage” was “unwise.” He believed that “the fighting was done by them, they were at the front, they were being pulled, and then you (Chan) wanted a big stage.” Chan clarified that this was not his idea but Lai’s idea. The person then said, “Jimmy Lai? You might as well say Trump.” Judge Lee asked if the person didn’t believe Chan. Chan agreed and also mentioned that Andy Li did not believe that Jimmy Lai would help him either.

Chan continued that when he told Lai he couldn’t contact the “valiants,” Lai said it was okay, as he already had a rough idea of the information and movements of the “valiants.” He also revealed that he had met with another young man, Sunny Cheung, recently and asked if Chan knew him, indicating that Lai had a high opinion of him. Chan said Sunny Cheung and his team had met with Lai to discuss sponsorship, but based on his understanding at the time, Cheung did not need Lai’s sponsorship as they had handled the funds well through crowdfunding. He also mentioned that Lai said, “Crowdfunding is better than his individual sponsorship because crowdfunding represents acceptance of something.”

Chan said that since he had participated in two crowdfunding activities, Lai believed that it was “a direct breakthrough of the traditional democratic camp framework.” So, he valued crowdfunding. Lai also mentioned “the big victory of the democratic camp” and believed that “we should combine street power, council power, and international power to continue the enthusiasm of the anti-extradition movement and to pressure the government to respond to the demands of the citizens.”

15:48 Chan: Lai Hopes “No Violence from valiants Before and on District Council Election Day”

The prosecution continued to show messages between Chan Tsz-wah and Jimmy Lai on November 20, 2019. Chan mentioned hearing that Little Wah (referring to a person) was arrested, to which Lai replied, “Unfortunately, but isn’t some of this expected?” Chan agreed, “Yes. Just happened to have a conversation with her the day before yesterday, feeling a bit emotional. I have urged everyone not to cause trouble before the 24th.”

The prosecution asked, what is November 24th? Chan said it was the District Council elections, “He (Lai) hopes that before and especially on the day of the District Council elections, the valiants will not engage in violent protests. At that time, he believed that the focus should be on the District Council elections.” Chan also mentioned that Lai “really wants to establish a leadership team, from my understanding, it’s what I mentioned yesterday as the ‘big stage’.” Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if the “big stage” was for the valiants. Chan said it was for both the valiants and the peaceful protesters, and he had already mentioned “not to cause trouble before November 24th” during a previous meeting with Lai.

On November 25th, Lai said, “It’s time we should think about the next step.” The prosecution asked what the “next step” was. Chan said it referred to the next step after the overwhelming victory in the District Council elections.

15:18 Chan: Lai Acknowledges U.S. Government Requests and Strives to Meet Them, Including No Deaths Among Police or Protesters and No Endless Violence

Chan Tsz-wah’s conversation with Jimmy Lai on November 18, 2019, revealed Lai’s comments about a police operation, stating, “This time the police have triumphed, capturing our most elite people in one swoop. I hope those who escaped yesterday are the elites of the valiants. We were too naive this time.” Chan responded, “The real elite are fighting outside, severely weakened.”

Chan explained that the two were discussing the PolyU riot, and he was following the situation through news, online information, and TG groups, feeling that the whole incident was strange. “How could you go into a place where you can’t leave to protest? So I thought maybe it’s a conspiracy.” Chan recalled seeing comments in a TG group that the PolyU riot was a “surround and support” operation, and he agreed with this analysis, hence discussing it with Lai.

The prosecution asked why Lai referred to “capturing our most elite people.” Chan thought Lai simply saw these individuals as allies, as “no difference between peaceful and valiant” was often mentioned. “So I understand that this phrase doesn’t mean these brave or elite members are under him.”

On the same day, Lai asked Chan: “Have the key figures from ‘Dragon Slayers’ managed to escape?” Chan replied, “The first generation of leaders are inside, the current members are not.” The prosecution asked why Lai was concerned about the situation of the militant squads. Chan believed, “At that time, he hoped that the less influence the valiants had, the healthier it would be for the entire (anti-extradition) movement.”

Chan explained that fewer valiants meant fewer violent scenes, “which would meet the expectations of the West.” He continued, “Meeting Western expectations means understanding what the U.S. government internally thinks,” “I realize that Jimmy Lai has not just been seeking international support, but he already knows certain demands and then tries to meet these demands as much as possible.”

The prosecution asked what these U.S. demands were. Chan said, “Within the entire anti-extradition movement, there must be no deaths among the police, no deaths among the protesting public, and no endless violence.” Chan also recounted that Lai later revealed inside information from the U.S. government, suggesting the U.S. felt that civilian claims or accusations against the Hong Kong government might lack evidence.

14:58 Clash at CUHK: Chan Alerts Lai About Involvement of Militant Squads

The prosecution displayed a conversation from November 16, 2019, between Jimmy Lai and Chan Tsz-wah. Lai forwarded a message to Chan: “Please inform all CUHK alumni to be aware of the latest developments: According to insiders at CUHK, the campus has been occupied by protesters (in black attire), some of whom are not CUHK students. These individuals have blocked all three vehicular entrances to the campus…” Lai asked Chan, “Do you know who these people in black are?” Chan responded that they were various groups, “led by teams like ‘Dragon Slayers’ and ‘Black Bloc’, loosely forming a group of individuals.”

The prosecution inquired how Chan came to know this information. Chan explained that he learned through word of mouth since he was unable to enter CUHK at the time and had to rely on others to pass on information. “But before he (Lai) sent this notice, I was already continuously asking and finding out, and I relayed to him whatever messages I received,” said Chan.

The prosecution further questioned why Chan was so persistent in gathering information. Chan responded, “Because it was so incredible, the scene was very incredible.”

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked Chan for further explanations. Chan stated that he saw on online forums that “everything was smashed, even construction vehicles were graffitied, so firstly I wanted to know if such things were really happening at the scene, and secondly if there was going to be a rally.”

The conversation continued on November 17, where Chan advised Lai to pay extra attention to groups such as ‘Dragon Slayers’, ‘Central Mobile’, ‘Flashlights’, ‘V Squad’, ‘Vipers’, ‘Pink’, and ‘Pink Team’, describing them as “These are leading unacceptable escalating violence.” He also informed Lai that Apple Daily had interviewed members and one of the leaders, Max, of these squads, and that Max was leading the defense at the PolyU conflict.

The prosecution asked why Chan advised Lai to pay particularly attention to these teams. Chan stated that he had searched these squad names online, “As far as I know, the media had already reported about these squads quite early on,” because Lai had always wanted to contact valiant groups. “I couldn’t reach these people, but I thought he could keep an eye on the following valiant squads.” Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked if he specifically mentioned Apple Daily interviewing the squads to help Lai contact them. Chan agreed.

14:46 Chan: Jimmy Lai Shares HKDC Document to Demonstrate U.S. Support for Hong Kong

The prosecution asked what Jimmy Lai meant by being able to achieve things through the power of media. Chan Tsz-wah explained that Lai did not specify details, saying, “Apple Daily doesn’t need to report on the valiant protesters; just by not reporting on them, their influence is already greatly reduced.” Chan responded at the time by saying he would “try” to find valiant leaders and talk to them, “and even give their contact details directly to Jimmy Lai if they were willing.”

The prosecution displayed a conversation between Lai and Chan from November 15, 2019. Lai mentioned that the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act was about to be voted on, describing it as “good news,” and included a document from the Hong Kong Democracy Council (HKDC). Chan replied that he would pay attention to the press conference. When asked what HKDC is, Chan stated that it is a Chinese-American group in the U.S., and the only registered lobbyist at the time was Samuel Chu, who is associated with HKDC, “but it’s not certain whether Samuel Chu is the leader of HKDC.”

The prosecution inquired why Lai shared the HKDC document with him. Chan said that Lai wanted to demonstrate the importance of international support, “and that the U.S. has not abandoned or ignored what’s happening in Hong Kong.”

14:32 Chan: Jimmy Lai Harshly Criticizes the Ma On Shan Arson Incident, Notes Increasing Misuse of Violence by Non-Peaceful Protesters

During the questioning about a dinner on November 13, 2019, involving Chan Tsz-wah, Jimmy Lai, Lam Cheuk-ting, Lee Wing-tat, and Lee Cheuk-yan, Chan recalled that Lai introduced him to Lam, Lee Wing-tat, and Lee Cheuk-yan, whom Chan had previously seen on television. Chan noted that Lai expressed his views on the anti-extradition bill movement during the meal, “especially harshly criticizing the Ma On Shan arson incident. He asked me if I knew the person involved; I said I did not.”

Chan continued, stating that Lee Cheuk-yan and others echoed Lai’s sentiments, adding that Lai felt the valiant protesters lacked organization and restraint, “and their increasing misuse of violence could, if it led to fatalities, cause the movement to lose its moral high ground in opposing the Hong Kong government and also lose international support.”

Chan reported that Lai mentioned, “Yellow and blue are political views, but black and white are about conscience; there are some bottom lines that need to be upheld.” Lai once again asked him to contact the leaders of the valiant protesters, “to persuade them to engage in dialogue and show more restraint.” Lai reiterated that non-violent protest methods should be the primary approach, “This time it was clearer; he hoped I would convey the messages he just discussed to other young people.”

Chan mentioned that Lai said, “If young people can’t achieve certain things, he could do so through the power of the media.” With three pro-democracy leaders also present, “Lai believed that the pro-democracy camp had sufficient local resources and international standing to elicit a response from the Hong Kong government.”

When asked by the prosecution what response from the Hong Kong government Lai was seeking, Chan stated Lai did not specify, but according to his understanding, it referred to the core demands of the anti-extradition movement, “He (Lai) hoped the government’s response would be the implementation of dual universal suffrage.”

12:47 Lunch Break

12:24 Chan: After the Ma On Shan Arson Incident, Jimmy Lai Believes Non-Violent Methods Should Be the Main Form of Protest

The prosecution discussed Chan Tsz-wah’s communication with Jimmy Lai. Chan confirmed that after their first meeting in July 2019, they kept in touch through WhatsApp. The prosecution showed a WhatsApp message from October 18, 2019, where Chan said, “Hello, Senir Lai” and “This is Wayland,” to which Lai responded, “Wayland. Great to have met you. Keep in touch. Cheers, Jimmy.”

On November 12, 2019, Lai messaged Chan, “Wayland, seeing the man was hurled oil and set on fire dreaded me. It’s about time the young and brave should have a leadership. Have time to meet and talk on this tomorrow or day after? I’m in Taipei and will be back in HK tomorrow afternoon. Thanks, Jimmy.” 

The prosecution inquired about the context of this discussion. Chan mentioned the Ma On Shan arson incident, where a pro-government individual was set on fire by someone in black, prompting Lai to contact him. When asked what Lai meant by “it’s about time the young and valiant should have a leadership,” Chan explained that Lai wanted to lead or dominate the non-peaceful protesters, similar to their first meeting in Sheung Wan, where Lai emphasized that non-violent and peaceful protest methods should be the primary strategy.

The prosecution questioned why Lai specifically mentioned this incident. Chan believed that first, Lai knew Chan “disliked such tactics,” and second, Lai thought Chan could reach out to the valiant protesters. The prosecution noted that Chan planned to visit Lai’s residence for dinner the next day, showing a message from Chan asking, “Is there any way I could avoid the reporters outside your house?” Chan explained that Mark Simon had mentioned, “There are usually many reporters outside Jimmy Lai’s house, and practically every move could be reported.”

The message further revealed that Lai arranged a car to pick up Chan, advising him to sit in the back and keep his head down, with someone to cover him in front. The prosecution asked who attended the dinner that day. Chan mentioned that Lam Cheuk-ting, Lee Wing-tat, and Lee Cheuk-yan were present.

12:15 Chan: Mark Simon says Andy Li and Others Left a Strong Impression After Meeting with U.S. Senator Rick Scott

The prosecution asked whether Andy Li had shared details about his meeting with U.S. Senator Rick Scott with Chan Tsz-wah. Chan mentioned that Andy Li had told him ” So that was Mark Simon” and noted “Rick Scott was very willing to listen to them.” Chan also stated that Mark Simon told him, “Rick Scott was very impressed, but the crowdfunding part wasn’t much use, rather, this kind of networking seemed even better, that’s essentially what was said.”

The prosecution inquired what “seemed even better” meant. Chan explained that “networking” refers to building a network of relationships, “Simply put, he (Mark Simon) felt that we, meaning myself and Andy Li, should know more people,” suggesting that from the perspective of Hong Kong protesters or activists, this would be more beneficial.

11:35 Break

Chan Tsz-wah nodded towards Jimmy Lai in the defendant’s dock as he left the courtroom.

11:10 Chan: “Laam Chau Team” Most Radical at International Level

The prosecution continued to display messages from Chan Tsz-wah in a WhatsApp group: “Indeed. @A.L. as discussed, we can disclose certain information and we two would provide assistance on the next campaign.” 

Chan explained that he was unsure if the “next campaign” mentioned in the message referred to another promotional event in Hong Kong or U.S. Congressman Rick Scott’s campaign for the 2024 presidential election. The details discussed included crowdfunding amounts, how to choose crowdfunding platforms, and content for posts.

Additionally, a personal conversation between Chan Tsz-wah and Andy Li showed Chan quoting Mark Simon advising Li not to mention “backer” and “JD team.” Chan stated that “backer” refers to people like Mark Simon and Jimmy Lai who financially supported global newspaper advocacy campaigns, while “JD team” refers to the “Laam Chau Team.” Chan also noted Mark Simon’s directive not to mention the “Laam Chau Team” because “he didn’t want to bring up anything related to Hong Kong independence.”

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang inquired what activities related to “Hong Kong independence” the “Laam Chau Team” had engaged in. Chan responded that on the ideological and international level, the “Laam Chau Team” was “the most radical,” and that some people linked the concepts of “Hong Kong independence” and “Laam Chau” together, “I think it’s generally understood that no politician would endorse the concept of ‘Hong Kong independence,’ so to avoid unpleasant discussions, my understanding was that it’s better not to mention the JD team or that idea.”

Chan reiterated that the “Laam Chau Team” was the most radical in terms of ideology on the international stage, especially since “Laam Chau Pa” Finn Lau was very well-known for his radical stance, “It’s not that there weren’t other minor groups advocating more radical thoughts, like building a nation for Hong Kong, but the most emblematic was the ‘Laam Chau Team’.”

10:45 Chan: Andy Li Attended United Nations Summit, Seen as Engaging in International Advocacy

The prosecution displayed a WhatsApp group called “Coffee on Sunday,” created by Chan Tsz-wah for a meeting with U.S. Senator Rick Scott. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang noted that Chan had previously mentioned traveling to Taiwan in court, but the messages indicated he met with the Taiwan Bar Association, thus suggesting the trip was not merely for leisure. Chan explained that what was initially a personal trip became a professional meeting as a senior colleague wanted to introduce him to some friends, leading to the meeting with the Taiwan Bar Association.

The prosecution asked if Andy Li was aware that Cath would also attend the meeting. Chan confirmed Andy Li knew. The prosecution highlighted Chan’s message in the group, “I think Cath can talk more about this,” and asked about the context. Chan recalled that Andy Li had never been on the frontlines of protests, “With only 24 hours in a day, busy with crowdfunding and managing SWHK (Fight for Freedom. Stand With Hong Kong), I believe he was mostly handling those aspects.” Since Cath had frontline experience, Chan felt “she could better describe it.”

The prosecution noted Chan’s description in the group, “Both of them are my teammates. Cath is frontline people. Li is international propaganda people,” and asked which organization this referred to. Chan explained that the group included various individuals; Andy Li was the only one from SWHK, with others being local Hong Kong residents involved in activities like promotion and offering free rides to protesters, “and possibly some older ones who would help foster the youngsters.”

Chan clarified “helping to foster youngsters,” meaning that during the protests, many young people who had lost their jobs were supported by older individuals who might buy meal vouchers for them, referred to as “fostering youngsters.”

When asked why he considered Andy Li to be involved in international advocacy, Chan highlighted SWHK’s significant impact at the international level, including organizing overseas rallies and advertising campaigns, and Li’s trip to the United Nations, “He was very formal about it, going around talking about it, so that left an impression on me.”

Regarding the message “Share our experience in UN” in the group, Chan indicated that Andy Li had attended a UN summit with plans to propose a resolution or topic to push the UN General Assembly to address issues in Hong Kong, although these were just his personal ideas. Chan quoted Li, expressing hopes for the UN to implement mechanisms or actions for Hong Kong, “but in the end, he said it was all for show, just a few handshakes and photos, which felt meaningless.”

The prosecution asked why Chan wanted Li to share his UN experience. Chan described it as Li’s “biggest selling point” on the international front, beyond his crowdfunding efforts.

10:38 Chan Quotes Jimmy Lai on the Ma On Shan Arson Incident mentioning, “Yellow and blue represent political views, but black and white are matters of conscience.” 

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked when Mark Simon asked some young people to meet with Rick Scott, was he considering Chan to be a young person, suggesting that Simon found Chan young. Chan humorously replied, “I hadn’t thought about it at the time, but I suppose so,” and described both Mark Simon and Jimmy Lai as viewing some non-traditional pro-democracy supporters as young due to their participation in the anti-extradition law movement.

Judge D’Almada Remedios inquired about Chan’s year of birth. Chan responded that he was born in 1991, Andy Li in 1990, and Finn Lau in 1992. Chan continued, noting that Mark Simon and Jimmy Lai perceived the traditional pro-democracy camp as relatively moderate, “But the 2019 anti-extradition law movement saw many more radical participants, thought to be led by the young.”

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang asked if Chan agreed that not all radicals are young. Chan concurred, “I’ve always opposed these labels. Sometimes I don’t understand why ‘frontliners’ must be frontliners, promotions must be done by designers, and pro-democrats must be old pro-democrats.” He explained that, in fact, many “elderly” support young political parties like Demosisto, “and even many of the radicals are older.”

Chan also recounted a meeting at Jimmy Lai’s residence, where Lai commented on the arson incident at Ma On Shan, remarking a phrase that made a deep impression on him, “Yellow and blue are political views, but black and white are conscience,” which implies, “How should we define or label the person who committed arson and the injured person?”

10:24 Chan indicates that he invited Andy Li to attend a meeting with an American senator

The prosecution asked, “What is ‘front line’?” Chan Tsz-wah explained that there was a common understanding that “front line” refers to protesters who go to the forefront, wearing helmets, “pig snouts” (face masks), carrying umbrellas, saline solution, and confronting the police. “This image or their participation in these activities would be called ‘front line’.”

The prosecution asked how Chan knew that Cath was “front line.” Chan replied, “Because on Telegram, they would say where they went to ‘dream’ today,” referring to participating in protests. Chan had also met Cath before.

Chan continued, mentioning to Andy Li that Rick Scott was coming to Hong Kong and hoped that young people would discuss the situation in Hong Kong. He noted that Rick Scott was an American senator and said, “Mark Simon mentioned that it would facilitate future international lobbying, and this is a good opportunity,” hence he invited Andy Li to attend. The prosecution asked if Chan meant it would facilitate future lobbying specifically for Andy Li? Chan clarified, “Not specifically for him,” but in a general sense to facilitate lobbying.

Chan mentioned that Andy Li knew he would not attend the meeting with Rick Scott. Chan also created a WhatsApp group adding Mark Simon, Andy Li, and Cath, and introduced Andy and Cath as involved in “publicity” and “front line” respectively, allowing them to coordinate directly.

10:12 Chan: Mark Simon Requested Meeting with U.S. Senator

The prosecution highlighted Chan Tsz-wah’s previous testimony that Andy Li had met with Mark Simon and U.S. Senator Rick Scott. Chan elaborated that Mark Simon contacted him via WhatsApp, asking if he was available to meet Rick Scott, which Chan found somewhat abrupt since he was unaware of who Rick Scott was. Mark Simon later informed him that Rick Scott was a U.S. Senator, unclear about which U.S. state he represented.

Chan further stated that Mark Simon mentioned Rick Scott was keen to understand the situation in Hong Kong, thus instructing him to meet with the senator to discuss it. When the prosecution asked if Mark Simon had also arranged for Andy Li to meet with Rick Scott, Chan replied, “Initially, he only asked me, and when I told him I was busy because I was traveling to Taiwan at that time.”

Mark Simon then suggested Andy Li for the meeting, “because he knew Andy—Andy Li had experience with crowdfunding and had also been to the United Nations, so he thought it would be good for him to go.” Chan mentioned that Mark Simon wanted another “frontline” young person to accompany them, and a woman named Cath from the TG group agreed to attend.

The prosecution asked what specific situations regarding Hong Kong did Mark Simon want Chan to discuss? Chan mentioned the incidents of July 21 and August 31, explaining, “The atmosphere during the anti-extradition bill movement was very intense. At that time, the five demands were not unimportant… they were not the primary concern.” He described a societal atmosphere seeking “a kind of equivalence,” such as their perception of police’s unequal and disproportionate violence, and the government completely ignoring the public’s demands.

The prosecution asked Chan to elaborate on the events of July 21 and August 31. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang interrupted, asking, “Why do we need to know about these contents?” Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping indicated, “I want to know.” Chan explained that July 21 was the incident involving white-shirted men in Yuen Long and an early morning attack at the Liaison Office; August 31 involved police driving out protesters at the Mong Kok subway station, where protesters were injured inside the train carriages. Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked if the August 31 incident occurred at Prince Edward station. Chan confirmed that it did.

10:03 Chan Tsz-wah Indicates Mark Simon Mentioned ‘Civil Lobbying’

On Monday (15th), Chan Tsz-wah testified that Jimmy Lai’s assistant Mark Simon suggested they rent a business office on Capitol Hill to use as an exhibition or lobbying center to “let people know what’s happening in Hong Kong,” related to the anti-extradition bill movement. Prosecutor Anthony Chau Tin-hang asked if Mark Simon had mentioned lobbying again afterward. Chan recalled that in August 2019, Mark Simon commented, “Why Jimmy could see so many officials was mainly because of the money given to consulting firms.”

Chan added that Mark Simon also suggested “doing some civilian lobbying work.” When asked about the difference between this and other forms of lobbying, Chan quoted Mark Simon’s explanation, “He said if you’re not using an official’s status, you’re essentially interacting as a civilian, and you can discuss Hong Kong’s situation and also invite some foreign officials to visit Hong Kong and see for themselves.”

10:01 Court Session Begins

The Witness

Stand up for Jimmy Lai

In a democracy, every voice matters. Click below to add your voice and share this message.