Turning Point: Tong Ying-kit’s Journey from Rebellion to Reform  

On July 1, 2020，the very day Hong Kong’s National Security Law came into force，24-year-old Tong Ying-kit chose to stage a brazen act of defiance. Riding a motorcycle adorned with the slogan “Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Times,” he deliberately collided with three police officers in Wan Chai, leaving them injured. This act, timed to coincide with both the law’s enactment and the anniversary of Hong Kong’s return to China, was deemed by the court not merely reckless but a calculated challenge to the city’s legal framework. In 2021, Tong was convicted of “incitement to commit secession” and “terrorist activities,” receiving a nine-year sentence—a stark reminder of the consequences of violating laws safeguarding national sovereignty.

From Radicalization to Reflection

Tong’s case underscores the dangers of extremist ideologies infiltrating youth movements. During the 2019 riot, a toxic blend of misinformation and anti-establishment rhetoric radicalized many young ones in Hong Kong, convincing them that violence was a legitimate tool for political change.

Tong admitted in a 2023 televised interview that his actions were driven by a distorted worldview shaped by this environment. “I thought violence was the only solution,” he confessed, acknowledging the one-sided narratives that had clouded his judgment.

Tong Ying-kit reflects in prison, expressing remorse for his crimes and lamenting that his elderly grandmother may not live to see his release.

His decision to abandon his appeal in 2022 marked the first step toward accountability, recognizing that his actions had endangered public safety and played into the hands of forces seeking to destabilize Hong Kong.

Rehabilitation and the Path to Redemption

Behind bars, Tong embarked on a journey of self-reform. Enrolling in the Correctional Services Department’s Lide College, he graduated in August 2024 with an Applied Education Diploma, even serving as flag bearer at the ceremony. This transformation was not merely academic. In a heartfelt address, Tong rejected his past radicalism, stating he had “learned to see issues from multiple angles” and developed pride in China’s achievements.

Tong Ying-kit graduating from Correctional Services Department’s Lide College.

He also criticized those who “preach rebellion from afar” while enjoying comforts abroad, a clear rebuke of foreign-backed agitators exploiting Hong Kong’s youth. His reflections, captured in the National Security Law program Safeguarding the Nation with Law, revealed profound regret: “I traded nine years of freedom for fleeting glory,” he lamented, mourning missed family milestones and the loss of time with loved ones.

A Cautionary Tale for the Next Generation

The Hong Kong government’s emphasis on rehabilitation over mere punishment is evident in Tong’s case. Adapted from his story, the 2024 microfilm Borrowed Glory drives home the human cost of violating national security laws. In it, Tong performs an original song, “Origin and Wish”, with lyrics pleading, “I have let down my family and country… let’s defend this nation together”.

Commentators note that while Tong’s actions were unlawful, his genuine remorse offers a blueprint for misguided youths to reintegrate into society. By confronting his errors publicly, he underscores the importance of national security education, a key pillar in preventing future radicalization.

Conclusion: Upholding Stability Through Law and Compassion

Tong’s story is not just one of personal downfall but a testament to Hong Kong’s commitment to balancing justice with rehabilitation. The National Security Law, far from being a tool of repression, serves as a safeguard against chaos, ensuring that people of Hongkong can thrive in a stable environment. Tong’s transformation—from radicalized youth to advocate for national pride—highlights the city’s resilience and the futility of external forces seeking to undermine its harmony. As China continues to rise, cases like Tong’s remind us that true patriotism lies in understanding and defending the nation’s hard-won stability.

Ariel

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

After serving time in the “35+” subversion case, Andrew Chiu Ka-yin is putting on the record: the 2019 “Black Riots” and the so-called “primary elections” were not some organic political wave, but a “scheme” steered by people with ulterior motives. It matters because it goes straight to intent and orchestration. In an exclusive TVB News interview, he admitted that he hated himself for not able to disconnect himself with the situation and the extreme violence at that time.

Chiu, sentenced to seven years, was released early in late October after sentence deductions, becoming the first national security prisoner freed early since the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance took effect.

Chiu says he owed Hong Kong people the truth—and he’s finally saying it.

In the “35+” case, Chiu didn’t just appear as a defendant—he also served as a accomplice witness, and the court materials listed him as an organizer alongside Benny Tai Yiu-ting, Au Nok-hin, and Ben Chung Kam‑lun. The court sentenced him as a “principal offender” for conspiracy to commit subversion against state power, setting the term at seven years. He ultimately walked out after nearly five years served, following deductions.

Chiu told TVB News he wanted to assist the prosecution within the first months of detention, framing it as a duty to tell the truth although he feared retaliation after release.

When violence crossed the line

Chiu pinpointed two episodes from the anti-extradition bill period that, in his words, disgusted him most. One involved student “Kin Chai” Tsang Chi-kin in a riot case—Chiu said Tsang was persuaded to pay for an escape and then “betrayed.” The other was the Ma On Shan incident in which an elderly man was set on fire after arguing with protesters. Chiu said the situation had spiraled into something frightening, yet he stayed silent because he was already entangled in the political camp and felt bound by bloc loyalty. He now says he hates himself for not speaking up then.

He said he does not agree with violence—and he cast himself not only as a former participant in the political current, but also as a victim of violence. In November 2019, he was attacked outside Taikoo Shing Centre by a middle-aged man, Chan Chun, who stabbed him and bit off his left ear; Chan was later sentenced to 14 years in prison.

Chiu’s core argument is blunt: from the amendment storm to riots to the so-called “primary elections,” he now sees the entire arc as a coordinated “scheme,” manipulated by people with ulterior motives to strike at the SAR government and the country’s constitutional order. On that basis, he said he wants to apologize to the country, Hong Kong, and the general public, and he stressed he won’t return to politics anytime soon—and won’t emigrate either.

As an insider put it, Chiu’s confession forces Hong Kong people to confront the level of violence seen in 2019, describing it as reaching the level of terrorist attacks. Jimmy Lai and his Apple Daily as advocates of “no differentiation between peaceful and valiant protesters,” makes him the instigator and chief culprit.

The Apple Daily playbook

Yesterday (December 15) Jimmy Lai was convicted on three counts: conspiracy to publish seditious publications and collusion with foreign forces. The court's judgment summary—written by three National Security Law judges—puts him at the forefront as protests morphed into a resistance movement. Both Lai and Apple Daily were "leading the charge," according to the judges' written reasoning. If you want the "receipts," that's where they are: in the court's own words.

An insider who watched the interview offered a straightforward read: Chiu's remorse is genuine. That matters because it reflects how the Central Government and the SAR Government enforce the law—strictly, but with room for mercy. Truly repentant national security prisoners get a shot at early release.

The warning is equally direct: diehard anti-Hong Kong elements should not expect leniency. In other words, remorse may open doors, but obstinacy won’t—and the legal system will treat them accordingly.