The Spectacular Implosion: Why the League of Social Democrats Turned Into Their Own Worst Enemy

The League of Social Democrats (LSD) went out with a bang recently, shouting "Rather be ashes than dust” " as they dissolved – a rather theatrical exit that reminded me of the fictional character Ah Q and his delusional heroics. Political insiders I know just sneered at this performance, saying bluntly: "They've been causing chaos for years, damaging rather than helping Hong Kong's democratic development. Now that it's all over, they should be remembered as 'democracy sinners.'" I couldn't agree more.

Recently, Civic Party founding member Ronny Tong posted on Facebook about the LSD's demise, echoing similar sentiments. He pointed out how “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung and "Mad Dog" Wong Yuk-man brought their "struggle culture" into the legislature, corroding the political ideals of the democratic camp and ultimately causing the complete failure of the pan-democrats. He also admitted quite candidly that the "blue blood" Civic Party got sucked into this dark vortex, and his inability to save it led to his disheartened departure from the party. Having dug into some insider information from that period, I find myself deeply sympathizing with his words.

Ronny Tong delivered his Facebook verdict on the LSD's dissolution, pointing out how leaders Wong Yuk-man and Long Hair's radical culture "eroded" traditional pan-democrats, leading to their ultimate complete failure – even dragging the "blue blood" Civic Party into the dark vortex.

From Gentle Protests to Legislative Mayhem

Tong wasn't surprised to see the LSD dissolve after the Civic Party and Democratic Party had already folded, but it brought back memories of the old days. He recalled how back in 2004, when he and Long Hair were both elected as New Territories East Legislative Council members, the most intense behavior of Long Hair in the legislative Council was standing up to shout his protests. Council President Mrs. Fan would respond like a patient parent teaching her child: "Long Hair, please sit down," and Long Hair would obediently comply, never actually disrupting the meeting order.

But things changed dramatically after Wong Yuk-man (the LSD chairman) entered the Legislative Council in 2008. He brought what you might call a "new culture" of foul language, verbal abuse, and physical confrontation into the chamber. It was quite the transformation.

The Civic Party's Descent Into Chaos

Tong noted that while it was understandable for the LSD to establish a distinctive image, he never expected the "blue blood" Civic Party to be gradually sucked into this dark, bottomless vortex of struggle politics. Later, they even became a main force behind the "Five Constituencies Referendum." The traditional democratic camp's inability to stick to their own governing philosophy was the primary cause of their ultimate complete failure.

Looking back at insider information from that time, the Civic Party being dragged into Wong Yuk-man's "Five Constituencies Referendum" was indeed the beginning of their radical turn. The LSD already harbored ambitions to seize leadership of the democratic camp at that point. Mad Dog vigorously pushed for five district legislators to resign, followed by by-elections, using this as a "de facto referendum" on political reform. The Civic Party was dragged along as if blind-folded, while Democratic Party heavyweight Szeto Wah (Uncle Wah) strongly opposed it, firmly resisting the LSD's "invasion" and blocking Jimmy Lai's behind-the-scenes manipulation.

Internal Warfare and Prophecies of Doom

Within the Civic Party, core member Ronny Tong consistently opposed the "Five Constituencies Referendum" and even organized a party member forum, inviting Uncle Wah to attend and analyze the harm this action would cause. But his honest advice fell on deaf ears, and he became a minority voice within the party, suffering severe ostracism. During one internal discussion, after he voiced his opposition, a scholar colleague tried to speak in support, only to be pointed at and verbally abused by other party members present, while the chairman failed to intervene. At that moment, he first sensed that the Civic Party would eventually perish. Subsequent developments proved his prediction completely correct.

In his Facebook post, Tong mentioned that by 2016, the universal suffrage proposal was rejected due to unanimous opposition from pan-democratic legislators, because they insisted that universal suffrage must include "civic nomination," which contradicted Article 45 of the Basic Law. He remembered that when Long Hair first proposed "civic nomination," all traditional pan-democrats opposed it, but as "struggle culture" gradually eroded democratic ideals, they eventually became the main force opposing the universal suffrage proposal.

The proposal failed and died in the womb, universal suffrage progress stagnated, and a golden opportunity for democratic reform vanished into thin air. Tong lamented that every pan-democratic figure bore responsibility for the failure of universal suffrage. He himself, having failed to persuade the Civic Party, ultimately resigned from the party and his position in accountability.

When Mad Dog and Long Hair pushed the "Five Constituencies Referendum," Tong fought hard against it within the Civic Party, resulting in his ostracism and eventual angry departure from the party.

The Real Reason Behind the Pan-Democratic Collapse

As someone who lived through it all, Tong hit the nail on the head about why pan-democratic parties fell one by one: they were continuously "eroded" by the "radical struggle culture" of groups like the LSD, causing their original political ideals to crumble. As a result, they were led by the nose and ultimately walked down a dead-end path.

Before its "death," the LSD shouted "Better be ashes than dust," appearing heroic but actually embodying a "mutual destruction" mentality. They didn't just self-destruct – they dragged other traditional pan-democratic parties off the cliff with them, taking the universal suffrage proposal to the grave as well.

When we're recording historical merits and faults, radical organizations like the LSD, including leaders such as Mad Dog and Long Hair, are all sinners who destroyed Hong Kong's democracy. That's the harsh truth of it.

Lai Ting-yiu

As the Year of the Horse approaching, Hong Kong BNO holders in the UK are bracing for a gut punch. The festive season brings no joy—only anxiety. Mid-February marks the deadline for the UK government's consultation on raising permanent residency thresholds, and the verdict on whether BNO holders get a pass is about to drop.

The Home Office floated immigration reforms that would keep the "5+1" rule intact—five years of residence before you can apply—but the bar just shot up, with higher English proficiency requirements and stable income. For many, these hurdles are insurmountable.

Mahmood's stonewalling to BNO holders' demands signals bad news. The February verdict looms.

Hong Kong BNO holders fired off "five demands" to the authorities, pleading for relief. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood's response was ice cold. Zero acknowledgment of their demands. Her dismissive tone signals one thing: exemptions for BNO holders look dead in the water.

If the final call goes all the way, thousands who waited five years will crash at the finish line. A return wave to Hong Kong is inevitable. The Hong Kong government needs to get ready.

The Dual Knockout Blow

The UK government didn't just raise the bar—it installed a double gate that slams shut on 60,000 people. First gate: English proficiency must hit B2 level, equivalent to A-Level, practically university standard. Second gate: annual income over the past three to five years must reach at least £12,570, with tax records to prove it.

Surveys by Hong Kong migrant organizations paint a grim picture: if these "dual requirements" become reality, 30% of BNO holders—roughly 60,000 people—will fail to qualify and get filtered out. No wonder panic is spreading.

While anxiety mounts, the UK government plays coy. Ambiguous statements. Equivocal attitudes. Nobody can read their hand. Now, with just one month until the announcement, BNO holders are reaching peak agitation. A group of Hong Kong voters in Mahmood's constituency drafted a joint letter, restating the "five demands" and requesting a face-to-face meeting to apply pressure.

Mahmood responded quickly—but only to say Hong Kong BNO holders could apply for permanent residency after five years. As for the "five demands"? Crickets. Instead, she reiterated that those granted permanent residency must meet three criteria: being "well-integrated," "economically self-sufficient," and "committed” to the communities they join.

Mahmood Goes Silent

One Hong Kong BNO holder who signed the petition decoded those three phrases: "integration" and "commitment" are code words for English proficiency and income levels. Translation: BNO holders applying for permanent residency must also clear these two hurdles.

These Hong Kong residents sent a follow-up letter to Mahmood, requesting a meeting to present their case in person. Her response? Radio silence. Phone calls to her constituency office go unanswered. She's clearly ducking any face-to-face encounter.

Mahmood is stonewalling, and nobody can do a thing about it. Frustrated BNO holders vent to yellow media outlets, angrily branding her "heartless." But here's the reality check: the Labour government's approval ratings are tanking. Reform UK is breathing down their necks on immigration. Immigration policy will err on the side of restriction, not relaxation. Naturally, they're inclined to treat BNO holders the same as everyone else. No special treatment. No "sentiment." The "five demands" might as well be whispers in the wind.

Two Paths Forward

Friends living in the UK lay out the scenario: if the UK government announces "no relaxation" next month, BNO holders who can't meet the requirements face two choices.

First option: return to Hong Kong and start over. After all, life in the UK hasn't been entirely rosy—living day after day in anxiety. "Returning home" might actually be a relief.

Second option: continue to "temporarily reside" in the UK on a BNO visa, becoming long-term temporary residents. But they'll remain in an unstable state, which won't be comfortable.

There's also a thornier complication: some BNO families migrated to the UK with their parents, and one spouse hasn't worked or earned any income for several years. If these family members don't meet the criteria for applying for permanent residency, it could trigger family separation or force the entire family to return to Hong Kong. They'll face an agonizing decision. Quite a mess.

No exemptions? Brace for the return wave.

My friend predicts that if the worst-case scenario materializes, a return wave is sure to come. For Hong Kong, there will be upsides and downsides. Either way, the government needs to get ready and figure out how to handle it.