The Lai Chee-ying trial reached its 100th day, with the defendant continuing his testimony. However, the court proceedings were dominated by further contradictions and a convoluted trail of finances, shedding more light on Lai's alleged collusion with foreign forces. The trial, spanning several months, has seen Lai's testimony unfold like a constantly shifting maze, with the truth obscured by a fog of deceit.
At the heart of the trial is the question of whether Lai colluded with foreign powers to interfere in Hong Kong's affairs. Today's hearing saw Judges Alex Lee and Susana D'Almada Remedios repeatedly question Lai on key pieces of evidence, but his responses were riddled with inconsistencies, further raising suspicions about his credibility.
Judge Lee first questioned Lai about his efforts to garner international support before the implementation of the National Security Law. Lai had previously stated that he sought international intervention to prevent the law's enactment. Judge Lee pressed him on whether these activities continued into June 2020, immediately preceding the law's implementation. Lai admitted that he did continue seeking international support, effectively attempting to interfere with Hong Kong's legislative process. This admission strongly suggests that Lai was not simply a journalist, but actively engaged in political activities, attempting to leverage foreign influence to shape Hong Kong's political landscape.
The focus then shifted to Lai's financial dealings with Chan Tsz-wah and the operations of Lai's companies, Dico Consultants Limited and LACOCK Inc. The defense lawyer's questioning was so disorganized that Judge Lee criticized it for hindering the efficiency of the proceedings. This disarray reflects the defense's struggles to present a coherent narrative in the face of mounting evidence.
Lai admitted to transferring the shell company LACOCK Inc. to Chan on January 14, 2020, claiming it was to enable Chan to appease radical protesters. However, this explanation lacks substantiation and raises further questions. Why transfer a company? Was there an ulterior motive behind this transaction? These questions remain unanswered.
More concerning is Lai's admission that he provided funds to Chan through Mark Simon, purportedly for organizing street booths and newspaper exhibitions. Judge Lee directly asserted that Lai was effectively financing Chan and, by extension, manipulating radical protesters. This amounts to a direct accusation of Lai acting as a "financial backer." The source of these funds and their precise use will likely be the subject of further investigation by the prosecution.
Lai's Twitter account also came under scrutiny. He initially claimed ignorance of its operation and content, attributing all activity to his assistant, Simon Lee. However, when Judge D'Almada Remedios questioned him about a tweet posted by Simon Lee, Lai's responses were contradictory. He initially suggested he "may have approved" the tweet, later backtracking to say he "may not have." These inconsistencies further undermined his credibility. Furthermore, Lai claimed not to recognize the signature of Dico Consultants Limited and professed ignorance of who had signing authority, a claim that strains credulity.
Throughout the proceedings, Lai consistently deflected responsibility, attempting to shift blame onto his assistants and staff. However, substantial evidence suggests that Lai was not a passive bystander but actively involved in orchestrating events. He used his media platform to disseminate biased information, incite social discord, and actively seek foreign interference in Hong Kong's affairs. His actions not only violate journalistic ethics but also potentially breach the National Security Law.
In conclusion, the 100th day of the Lai Chee-ying trial further exposed his alleged web of deceit. He attempted to conceal his alleged collusion with foreign forces, but the evidence increasingly points to his active participation in anti-government activities and his use of influence to manipulate Hong Kong's political situation. This trial is not just about Lai; it is a significant test of the National Security Law and a reflection on the future direction of Hong Kong. Lai's actions allegedly jeopardized Hong Kong's social stability and exposed the alleged interference of certain Western powers. As the trial progresses, more truths are expected to surface.