Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai is charged with “conspiring to collude with foreign forces” among other charges. The case continued for the 94th day on Thursday (21st) at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts, acting as the High Court. Lai testified for the second day, mentioning that on the day of the July 1st Legislative Council conflict, he messaged Chan Pui-man suggesting that the reporting focus on the thoughts of the young people.

He stated that some might subjectively view this as an instruction, but emphasized it was a suggestion, not an editorial directive. He hoped to express the thoughts of the young people to garner sympathy from Hong Kongers. He believed that the young people had made mistakes and needed to be explained in order to be understood and sympathized with by the public, thus preventing damage to the movement. He reiterated his opposition to violence, hence his message mentioned, “We hope they take this as a lesson and adopt a more peaceful approach to protests going forward.”

The case is being presided over by designated National Security Law judges Esther Toh Lye-ping, Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios, and Alex Lee Wan-tang at the High Court. The prosecution is represented by Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Anthony Chau Tin-hang, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Ivan Cheung Cheuk-kan, and Senior Public Prosecutor Crystal Chan Wing-sum; 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.

16: 19 Court Adjourned

15:52 Lai: Protests are Legal, Writing to Urge Participation Isn’t Incitement to Hatred

Judge Alex Lee noted that there are still 11 articles related to the case that Lai needs to review. If it takes 15 minutes to read each article, the trial could fall behind schedule. The defense stated that Lai has read the articles but reserves the right to review them again. Judge Lee agreed but asked if there was a more efficient way to handle this.

Judge Esther Toh suggested if Lai could review 3 to 5 articles at a time to improve efficiency. Lai joked that if he tried to read 5 articles at once, he would forget the first four. The defense asked if he could remember the contents of three articles. Lai responded that he couldn’t remember everything. Judge Lee clarified that they didn’t need Lai to recall every word, but rather the intent behind his writings. Eventually, Lai was allowed to read the article from June 2, 2019, titled “For Ourselves and Our Next Generation, Stop Hong Kong’s Descent.”

The article referenced the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, recounting the horrific scenes witnessed by the older generation and raising concerns that such events could recur in Hong Kong. It stated, “This year marks the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre, and you may have revisited the dreadful scenes of students being slaughtered in the videos. Especially for us older folks, who witnessed the tanks and machine guns mowing down students, these memories are vividly alive. Imagine such terrifying scenes possibly recurring here in Hong Kong if we become disgruntled and need to protest… No, take a step forward, spend three hours on June 9th to leave a footprint to halt the sinking of justice for yourself and the next generation.”

The defense asked if Lai intended to incite against the central government. Lai denied this, explaining that he wrote the segment because he feared that if Hong Kong lost its rule of law, the same events that occurred in China could happen there. Lai added that the article merely called for people to protest, which is legal, and was not intended to make them hate the central government or engage in illegal activities.

Lai continued to read an article published on October 26, 2019, titled “What Americans Want to Tell Us,” with the defense planning to question him further about it the next day. Judge Lee expressed concern that with 161 articles involved in the case, following this method would prolong the trial significantly, saying, “We will be here for another half a year.” The defense assured that not all articles would be questioned in this manner, but it was necessary for this particular one.

15: 30 Break

15:08 Lai: Columns Intend to Forecast Consequences of Policies, Not Incite Hatred

The prosecution referred to Lai’s columns, including “Success or Failure With a Smile” noting Lai did not remember when he started writing but had been doing so for approximately 8 to 10 years.

In an article published on April 28, 2019, titled “Please Stand Up to Protect the Last Line of Defense,” it mentioned, “The effect of the ‘extradition evil law’ is like the ‘availability cascade’ effect of a terrorist attack, making all citizens of Hong Kong shrouded in the compliant consciousness of panic, allowing Mainland’s lawlessness to override Hong Kong’s judicial system, turning rule of law into rule by law…”

When asked if the articles intended to incite hatred, contempt, or dissatisfaction towards the Hong Kong government, Lai denied it, saying, “I was just projecting what would happen if the measure was taken. And a lot of what I said here has come to pass.”

The defense highlighted, “I have to remind you again, whether you are right or not, is not the concern of this court, this court doesn’t judge whether your prediction is right or not. That is a matter of history, not for this court.”

Lai reiterated, “My intention was a projection of what would happen.”

Regarding the article’s mention, “Just as with the ‘extradition evil law,’ you inevitably feel the pressure of a knife over your head, becoming a timid and compliant citizen. Yes, it’s foolish; the odds of you being dragged away are slim, but living in a Hong Kong that is no longer safe, you resign yourself to fate,” the defense asked if Lai intended to incite hatred through his writing. Lai denied any such intent.

Another article published on May 5, 2019, titled “Thinking of Emigrating or Protesting,” suggested, “If we only voice our opposition through sound or text, Carrie Lam and senior officials will persist in their prejudice towards the ‘Fugitive Offenders Ordinance.’ However, if we gather in large numbers to protest, no matter how cunning they are, they must confront the reality of our firm opposition to the evil law, and they might falter and compromise. We must not give up on showing them that to protect our homeland, we will go all out and resist to the end.”

Lai emphasized he had no intention of inciting hatred but merely used examples to encourage people to protest.

14:45 Lai: Estimates Yeung’s “Birdcage Autonomy” Represents Working for Media Values

Regarding Yeung Ching-kee’s description of Apple Daily’s editorial independence as “birdcage autonomy,” suggesting that Lai set the basic stance for Apple Daily like defining a “birdcage” within which editorial staff had certain autonomy, “but cannot exceed this framework,” the defense asked if Lai agrees he established a “birdcage” for Apple Daily. Lai denied ever setting any restrictions or a “birdcage.”

Lai interpreted Yeung’s metaphor as meaning that working in the news media equates to working for the values represented by the media, as the media are linked through a series of values. For example, Sing Tao and Oriental Daily would not explicitly oppose the anti-extradition protests, let alone Ta Kung Pao or Wen Wei Po. The duty of the media is to spread news or commentaries reflecting these values, resonating with readers, “not only in the mind but also in the heart.” Lai explained that these values are imprinted in the heart, and the values of Apple Daily are those he mentioned in the founding editorial, including freedom and democracy.

Judge Esther Toh cited examples, mentioning Lai’s view that The New York Times and CNN oppose Trump. Lai noted that since Trump is conservative, these media have a “liberal” “birdcage.” The defense further asked if an Apple Daily staff member wrote against human rights, they would be outside Apple Daily’s “birdcage,” and Lai agreed.

The defense continued, asking if Lai had ever invited people considered pro-establishment or outside the “birdcage” to write for Apple Daily. Lai mentioned he had invited Jasper Tsang from the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) to write, but he declined. The defense showed WhatsApp conversations from 2018 between Lai and Pui-man Chan, suggesting invites to names including Jasper Tsang, John Tsang Chun-wah, Joseph Yam Chi-kwong, Willy Wo-Lap Lam, Yu Ying-shih, Joseph Yi-zheng Lian, Cheng Ming-yan, Lee Yee, Pilgrim Lo Wing-kwong, and Edwin Lai. . Lai noted that except for Jasper Tsang, whom he invited personally, the rest were managed by Chan Pui-man . He mentioned Joseph Yam was also considered within the “birdcage” because of his belief in free markets. Lai noted that Joseph Yi0zheng Lian and Lee Yee had written for Apple Daily, but attempts to invite Jasper Tsang, John Tsang, and Joseph Yam were unsuccessful, after which he ceased inviting these individuals.

14:34 Lai Confirms Recommending Writers to Yeung Ching-kee for Political and Economic Topics

The defense continued to question about the “shit list,” asking Lai if he ultimately received any such list from pro-democracy friends. Lai said no, and he first shared the message with friends before sending it to Chan Pui-man, and ultimately, no one asked him about the “shit list.”

The defense then referenced the testimony of the former chief editorial writer and forum supervisor, Yeung Ching-kee. They noted that after the senior current affairs commentator Lee Yee retired, Yeung took over the forum section of Apple Daily. Lai said he did not know Yeung before his appointment. Initially, there was no contact between them, but after reading Yeung’s articles, which demonstrated his familiarity with Chinese news, Lai would ask him for information related to China, usually via WhatsApp.

Regarding personal discussions, Lai said that if Yeung could not find the news Lai wanted, Yeung would come to his office to explain personally what other information he could provide. Lai noted that Yeung came to his office no more than 10 times a year. The defense also asked if Lai had recommended any writers for the forum section. Lai confirmed he had. When asked about the criteria for recommending writers, Lai explained that the writers needed to write about political and economic topics. For instance, he once read an article by Allan Au in Apple Daily’s supplement that he found very well written, so he recommended him to Yeung.

The defense showed a message from July 2020 between Lai and Yeung, in which Lai sent a photo of Au’s article in the supplement and mentioned, “Li Ping, Allan Au’s article is good, please consider inviting them to write for the commentary section.”

As for Yeung’s earlier claim that Lai recommended another writer known by the pseudonym “Yi Jian Piao Chen,” Lai denied this in court, stating that Yeung arranged it himself, and Lai only praised the articles after seeing them in the forum section. The defense displayed another conversation where Lai sent Yeung a photo of an article titled “Do not equate BLM with Anti-Extradition,” commenting, “Li Ping, this is the best-written article on the whole page.” Yeung responded, “This writer is a new find, thanks for the encouragement.” Additionally, Lai said he might have recommended writer Ngan Shun-kau because he liked his articles.

12:30 Lai: Unfamiliar with Forwarding on Signal, Thus Copied and Sent to Others

Judge Esther Toh questioned why Lai would forward the ‘hate list’ related message to friends and how he knew they would be interested. Lai mentioned that if the recipients were not interested, they wouldn’t read it, but he believed it was important because it was provided by someone related to the White House, so he forwarded it to friends and Chan Pui-man, although he himself did not read the message.

Lai disclosed that around the same time, he sent the same message to members of the Democratic Party such as Lam Cheuk-ting, Lee Wing-tat, Albert Ho, Wu Chi-wai, and his subordinate, Ryan Law Wai-kwong. Judge Susana Remedios questioned why Lai claimed the message was confidential yet shared it with others. Lai explained that by ‘confidential’, he meant that the Signal platform is encrypted, so he assumed messages sent on Signal were confidential, adding that he only shared them with close friends and trusted individuals.

Defense attorney Steve Kwan asked if Lai ever received non-confidential messages on Signal. Lai responded that perhaps using the term ‘confidential’ was a mistake and ‘discreet’ would better describe the messages received on Signal due to its stringent encryption.

Judge Alex Lee asked if Lai was aware that the message was related to Trump’s executive order when he forwarded it to several people. Lai admitted he glanced at it but didn’t remember if he noticed it was Trump’s executive order at that time. He emphasized that he doesn’t know how to directly forward messages on Signal, so he copied the content and pasted it to send to others.

12:11 Lai Denies Directing Subordinates to Create a ‘Hate List’

The defense referenced a message sent by Lai to Chan Pui-man two weeks after the implementation of the National Security Law, along with a link.

“Text of Trump’s executive order

full text of the President’s executive order on Hong Kong today. It’s quite expansive and goes beyond what he outlined at the beginning of his press conference. ⋯⋯I’d say we should work up a shit list on those involved in censorship, which can include intimidation.

Lai stated in court that he forgot where he obtained the message, but believed it was provided by U.S. officials, and that he did not author it himself. He considered the message content confidential, received it via Signal, and then forwarded it to Chan Pui-man via WhatsApp. However, he actually never read the message; he merely thought it was important, so he forwarded it to Chan to assess its news value.

Lai explained that he receives many messages daily and does not read each one. Chan also did not respond, inquire, or possibly even read it. Regarding the ‘shit list’ message, Lai said he read it for the first time in court, noting, “It’s not the kind of language that I would use.”

Lai also forwarded the message to other pro-democracy friends. The defense showed messages between Lai and the former Democratic Party chairman, Lee Wing-tat, where Lai forwarded the same message. When asked by the defense if Lai was instructing Lee to create a ‘shit list,’ Lai denied it, calling it “ridiculous.” The court showed that Lai had also forwarded the message to former Labour Party chairman Lee Cheuk-yan.

11:29 Court Adjourned

10:45 Defense Claims Lai Only Offers Suggestions, Not Directives

The defense referred to a 2018 message between Jimmy Lai and Chan Pui-man, mentioning, “For instance, could we get a retired police officer or former ICAC official to write some insights to integrate into today’s headline?” Lai stated that at the time, he was making a suggestion to Chan. The defense reiterated in court that Lai, both before and during the case, would make suggestions to subordinates, especially to Chan Pui-man, but disagreed that these amounted to directives.

Continuing, the defense quoted a message from Lai to Chan in April 2019, in which Lai sent an article titled “Discussing the Extradition Evil Law with Predecessors in the Judiciary,” asking Chan “Can we handle this with an article?” Lai again emphasized that it was a suggestion, not a directive, and there was no follow-up on how Chan Pui-man handled it. Regarding a message forwarded by Lai to Chan on June 9, which included a conversation between Lai and Dong Qiao:

Lai stated that he simply thought it was a good headline, so he suggested it to Chan, letting her decide whether to use it. Ultimately, Chan did not adopt it, and no one was punished because Lai was merely making a suggestion.

Regarding a message Lai sent to Chan in July 2019, he mentioned, “Edward Lucas is a very popular columnist of the London Times. You may find some of his articles suitable for publication.” Lai also denied that this constituted a directive, and Chan ultimately did not use it. In December of the same year, Lai forwarded an article provided by Ben Rogers, “An open letter to detainees and protesters in Hong Kong,” mentioning that it would be up to the editors to decide how to handle it. Lai emphasized again that this was not a directive, as it clearly stated that it was up to them to decide.

The defense quoted a message from Lai to Chan in March 2020, where Lai sent a statement co-authored by Benedict Rogers, the head of “Hong Kong Watch,” and Luke de Pulford, the founder of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC), urging Chan “Please see what you can do to help Ben.” Lai said this was not a directive but “a very strong suggestion.”

10:35 Lai: Extensive Coverage of Young People’s Voices During the July 1 Legislative Council Clash Was a Suggestion, Not an Editorial Directive

The defense continued to quote conversations between Lai and former Apple Daily Vice President Chan Pui-man, in which Lai forwarded an article provided by Benedict Rogers of “Hong Kong Watch.” Lai mentioned he forwarded it to Chan to let her decide its usefulness. He regularly receives articles from various sources and forwards them if he thinks they might be useful, letting Chan decide independently.

The defense also quoted messages between Lai and Chan concerning the coverage of the July 1 Legislative Council conflict. Lai messaged Chan, “The young people storming the Legislative Council weighs heavily on my heart. What do you think the pan-democrats should do post-incident to keep the movement going? Fortunately, the public seems somewhat sympathetic to the young people, so the damage might not be too severe. What do you think?” Lai explained in court that he was concerned the clash would damage the movement, but this was not an editorial directive, nor did he instruct Chan to do anything. Lai confirmed that he merely suggested focusing on the thoughts of the young people. Lai added that he did not view the Legislative Council incursion as severe violence since no one was hurt, though there was destruction of public property and illegal acts.

Under questioning by Judge Alex Lee, Lai acknowledged that some might subjectively see this as a directive, but he emphasized it was merely a suggestion. He hoped to gain Hong Kong people’s sympathy by expressing the thoughts of the young people. Judge Esther Toh further inquired if Lai intended to convey (transmit) the thoughts of the young people who stormed the Legislative Council to gain public sympathy. Lai clarified it was not about transmitting but explaining, as he felt the youth had made a mistake and needed to explain to gain public understanding and sympathy, to prevent damage to the movement. Judge Alex Lee asked if Lai had suggested reporting from a specific perspective, to which Lai agreed.

Lai’s message also mentioned, “Try to highlight the young people’s plight to garner sympathy, making those who criticize them reflect. We don’t need to consider those who disagree; we stand with the young people, making the public understand their difficulties and voices, to vindicate them and allow the movement to continue. If they are vindicated, the movement has a chance to continue. Although we hope they take this as a lesson and opt for more peaceful methods of protest in the future.” Lai explained in court that he was focused on the thoughts of the young people, which is why he reached out to Chan Tsz-wah. Lai agreed that the movement referred to the riot and anti-extradition bill movement. He reiterated his opposition to violence, hence the message mentioned, “We hope they take this as a lesson and opt for more peaceful methods of protest going forward.”

10:20 Lai Denies Instructing Colleagues to “Keep Going Until They Get Arrested”

Barrister Steven Kwan continues questioning. The defense cites a letter Lai sent to the chief editor, Ryan Law Wai-kwong, during his detention on April 3, 2020, which was published in Apple Daily on April 13. In the letter, Lai mentioned, “Freedom of speech is now a dangerous job, please be extra careful, do not take risks, your personal safety is important.” Contrary to this, former Next Media CEO, Cheung Kim-hung, claimed that during his visit, Lai told him, “Why let yourself be arrested? Better keep going until they get you, and be careful under these circumstances.” Lai responded in court, saying Cheung’s statement contradicts his letter, denying Cheung’s version of events.

The defense also references an article Lai wrote for The New York Times on May 29, 2020, titled “Do My Tweets Really Threaten China’s National Security?” where he discussed the National People’s Congress decision on May 28 and the National Security Law targeting three types of crimes: secession, subversion, and terrorist activities. The defense questioned why Lai thinks the implementation of the National Security Law would end freedom of speech and jeopardize Apple Daily. Lai explained that the National Security Law covers a broad range and restricts free speech, with the authorities able to interpret it arbitrarily, leading to a loss of freedom for Hongkongers.

Regarding a message Lai sent to Cheung Kim-hung, he mentioned, “Please tell the international team not to target Trump in The New York Times and CNN, as we rely on the Trump administration to save Apple Daily; it’s not good to do this.” Judge Alex Lee questioned if Lai was concerned about the operation of Apple Daily in Hong Kong or Taiwan. Lai clarified it was about Hong Kong Apple Daily, but both the Hong Kong and Taiwan Apple Dailies are linked; opposing Trump while seeking his help for Hong Kong would be contradictory. At that time, Taiwan Apple also published articles opposing Trump, so he hoped to pause this situation.

10:07 Court Session Begins

Under the escort of three correctional officers, Lai walks to the witness stand to continue his testimony.

09:58 Jimmy Lai Enters Courtroom

Lai steps into the dock, gestures a greeting to the attendees, and smiles at his family.

The Witness