Jimmy Lai hoped for ‘more draconian sanctions’ as Beijing’s security law approached, court hears
Hong Kong Free Press
Jailed Hong Kong media tycoon Jimmy Lai has told his national security trial that he hoped the US would impose “more draconian sanctions” on China to stop an imminent national security law promulgated by Beijing in mid-2020.
Lai, 76, said on Friday that the US sanctions would “hopefully” force Beijing to reconsider the security law, which was imposed on Hong Kong after large-scale pro-democracy protests and unrest in 2019.
The founder of the now-shuttered Apple Daily newspaper is on trial for two counts of conspiracy to collude with foreign forces under the Beijing-imposed security law and another conspiracy charge of publishing “seditious” materials. He could be jailed for life if convicted.
Lai, giving evidence for a seventh day, was asked to explain WhatsApp message exchanges in late May 2020 between him and his co-defendant, paralegal Chan Tsz-wah, who turned prosecution witness after pleading guilty to the foreign collusion charge.
The court heard Lai texted Chan on May 28, about a month before the security law came into effect, that “more draconian sanctions are coming from [Donald] Trump hopefully this weekend.”
See also: Jimmy Lai tells national security trial overthrowing China’s Communist Party was ‘crazy’ idea
Lai said he understood US sanctions as targeting the “Chinese government,” and that would be the “only possibility” that could reverse the impending enactment of the security law.
“I did not think – certainly – it would stop [the security law], but at least that’s my hope,” he told the court.
He added that “more draconian” meant “more dangerous, more damaging,” rather than suggesting more sanctions would be imposed on top of existing measures.
Prosecutors have accused Lai of requesting foreign sanctions, blockades, or other hostile activities against Beijing and Hong Kong in the wake of the protests of 2019.
The US imposed sanctions on 11 Hong Kong and Beijing top officials in August 2020 following the enactment of the security law, including Chief Executive John Lee, who was then the city’s security chief.
The court also heard Chan texted Lai expressing concern for his safety on May 21, when news broke about China’s parliament, the National People’s Congress, discussing a draft for the security law. The law also targets subversion, secession, and terrorism.
Lai dismissed Chan’s concern, writing in reply: “Let’s not worry about personal security. Once one has come out to join the fight for freedom, one is prepared to fight to the last. We may not win, but must persist. Don’t worry. Better days will come. Cheers, Jimmy.”
Asked by Judge Alex Lee, one of the three designated national security judges presiding over the trial, whether he was worried about possibly contravening the security law, Lai said: “If I had any worries, I did not think about them.”
“I [would] persist, stay in Hong Kong and face it,” Lai added.
‘Nothing to do’ with primary election
Lai on Friday denied arranging for Chan to meet with former Taiwanese minister of digital affairs Audrey Tang, saying he only made arrangements at request of Chan.
Lai said he did not know why Chan was interested in meeting Tang, whom Lai called “an IT genius” but “not an expert of demonstration or political movement.”
Chan, a member linked to international advocacy group Stand with Hong Kong (SWHK), earlier told the court that the group was planning to expand their lobbying efforts to Taiwan. Lai had offered to link them up with Taiwanese politicians.
Lai also denied giving a shell company he owned to Chan as a “reward” for his international lobbying work, suggesting the latter was fabricating his earlier testimony.
He said the company was provided “out of goodwill,” as he was seeking Chan’s help to “pacify” radical protesters, and because of Chan’s difficulties with his own business endeavour at the time.
Lai also said he forwarded a message from James Cunningham, formerly the US top diplomat in the city, to Chan “just for his information.” In that message, Cunningham said the US was “very concerned” about violence from Hong Kong’s protesters.
Separately, the tycoon said he had “nothing to do” with an unofficial primary election held in July 2020.
Last week, 45 democracy campaigners were sentenced to up to 10 years in prison for subversion over their participation in the primary election, which aimed to secure a legislative majority for the opposition. Two were acquitted earlier this year.
The tycoon said he was not concerned about the primary because he did not personally know many of the candidates, such as ex-lawmaker Eddie Chu and journalist-turned-activist Gwyneth Ho.
But Judge Lee questioned Lai’s account as Apple Daily had “numerous reports” about the primary and also organised the election forum for the candidates.
Lai maintained he was not aware of the details of individual candidates’ campaigns but he knew that the primary was taking place.
The defence is expected to examine Lai’s financial records with SWHK when trial resumes on Monday.
Support HKFP | Policies & Ethics | Error/typo? | Contact Us | Newsletter | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps
Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team
.wp-block-newspack-blocks-homepage-articles article .entry-title {
font-size: 1.2em;
}
.wp-block-newspack-blocks-homepage-articles .entry-meta {
display: flex;
flex-wrap: wrap;
align-items: center;
margin-top: 0.5em;
}
.wp-block-newspack-blocks-homepage-articles article .entry-meta {
font-size: 0.8em;
}
.wp-block-newspack-blocks-homepage-articles article .avatar {
height: 25px;
width: 25px;
}
.wp-block-newspack-blocks-homepage-articles .post-thumbnail{
margin: 0;
margin-bottom: 0.25em;
}
.wp-block-newspack-blocks-homepage-articles .post-thumbnail img {
height: auto;
width: 100%;
}
.wp-block-newspack-blocks-homepage-articles .post-thumbnail figcaption {
margin-bottom: 0.5em;
}
.wp-block-newspack-blocks-homepage-articles p {
margin: 0.5em 0;
}
HKFP has an impartial stance, transparent funding, and balanced coverage guided by an Ethics Code and Corrections Policy.
Support press freedom & help us surpass 1,000 monthly Patrons: 100% independent, governed by an ethics code & not-for-profit.