Media mogul Jimmy Lai was fearless and “led by example” after the Beijing-enacted security law came into force, an activist testifying against the tycoon in his high-profile trial has said.
Chan Tsz-wah, a paralegal who was charged alongside Lai and is now a witness for the prosecution, appeared at West Kowloon Law Courts Building on Thursday as the defence began questioning him.
Marc Corlett, one of Lai’s lawyers, asked Chan whether it had been his “intention… to deliberately take action [he] knew to be in breach” of the national security law.
The activist said it “depended on what kind of people were by his side.”
“If there were people who were still continuing to work hard, like Andy Li and Jimmy Lai, people I know working hard for Hong Kong, I think ultimately I would do it,” Chan said, testifying in Cantonese.
Li is another activist charged alongside Chan and Lai in the national security case. Like Chan, Li has pleaded guilty and is testifying against Lai in the trial.
Chan added: “At the time, I thought since a man of Lai’s calibre could be so fearless and leading by example, that there are things that must be done.”
Thursday marked the 66th day of Lai’s national security trial on two counts of conspiring to collude with foreign forces and one count of conspiring to publish seditious materials. According to the prosecution, Lai – as well as Chan and Li – had lobbied for foreign governments to impose sanctions on Hong Kong and China.
Lai, the founder of the now-defunct pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily, pleaded not guilty to the charges. He faces up to life imprisonment if found guilty under the national security law, which Beijing imposed in Hong Kong on June 30, 2020 after months of anti-extradition protests and unrest.
Interactions with Jimmy Lai
As Chan took to the witness stand for the eight straight day, the defence sought to understand the extent of his communication with Lai after the security law took effect.
The activist confirmed that his last face-to-face meeting with Lai was in mid-June 2020. They met on June 16 at Apple Daily’s headquarters.
In terms of text communication, the two exchanged messages on messaging app Signal on July 12 and 13, 2020. In the messages, which Corlett displayed for the court, Chan thanked Lai for “everything in the primary election.”
Chan was referring to the democrats’ primaries that had just been held, meant to select candidates to run in the Legislative Council elections that were slated for that year but were then postponed due to Covid-19.
When asked if he could recall any other messages between him and Lai after the security law took effect, Chan said no.
Corlett questioned Chan on whether the mogul had asked him to personally carry out “activities that were now unlawful” under the security law. Chan responded that he had never directly told him to do so.
Chan also told the court that following the enactment of the security law, he did not enter into any oral agreements with Lai that he would carry out unlawful activities.
‘A lie’
During Thursday’s hearing, the defence drew attention to apparent inconsistences in Chan’s statement about interactions with Mark Simon, a US-based activist who was an aide to Lai.
Corlett suggested to Chan that Simon had never instructed him to do anything. Chan disagreed, implying that he had.
The lawyer then brought up a transcript of an interview which Chan did under caution with police on October 11, 2020, after he was arrested over assisting an offender. At the time, Chan had not yet been apprehended under the national security law – his security law arrest was on February 2021 – and hence had not yet agreed to cooperate with the prosecution.
Chan confirmed that the transcript showed him telling police that Simon had never asked or instructed him to do anything.
Corlett then asked Chan whether Simon had told him at the last time they spoke, which was in late 2020, to “think about how to get [his] life back on track because there will no longer be large-scale social movements in Hong Kong.”
Chan denied this, but then confirmed that he did say so after Corlett showed the court a transcript – also from the October 2020 interview with police – containing that sentence.
“You just told us that you did say that to the police. You also said it was not true,” Corlett said. “I’m suggesting to you that if it wasn’t true, then it was a lie.”
“I disagree,” Chan said without elaborating.
The defence will continue examining Chan on Friday.
Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team
