Hong Kong’s National Security Police have just delivered a powerful blow, launching a full-on crackdown targeting the masterminds and candidates behind the so-called “Hong Kong Parliament.” Nineteen individuals, including key figures like Elmer Yuen Gong-yi and Victor Ho Leung-mou, have been declared fugitives, accused of conspiring to subvert the HKSAR government. All have skipped town, but arrest warrants are in the air. But mind that it's not just these big players in the crosshairs. A senior political insider told me that the scope is vastly wider—over 15,000 people who cast votes as “electors” could be in legal jeopardy too. If the authorities can tie a ballot to your name, you may find police at your door. And that doesn’t just stop at voters—any locals who pitched in money or provided tech help might be next on the list.
Nineteen ringleaders and “candidates” from the so-called ‘Hong Kong Parliament’ are now wanted—and police are eyeing thousands more supporters and voters who threw in their lot.
What Was Behind the “Hong Kong Parliament” Push?
Now, the group headed by Yuen wasn’t exactly secretive. Despite plenty of missteps (and more than a few meme-worthy moments), their objective was crystal clear: set up a government-in-exile, and take down the HKSAR administration. They weren’t shy about it. Some “candidates” were even promising military training and open talk of buying weapons for armed revolt—hardly subtle stuff. No surprise, then, that the National Security Police have only just started a bigger clean-out, aiming to dismantle this entire operation.
Web of Connections: More Than Just Local Trouble
Several newly “elected” members of this Parliament, however, turn out to be cozied up to other anti-Establishment factions abroad. There’s a real pipeline of overseas support being funneled in. Take Keung Ka-wai, the “top vote-getter”—he’s teamed up with exiled protesters in Taiwan to launch their own “Hong Kong Democratic Independence Union.” They even had their own press conference propagating Hong Kong independence, which earned Keung a swift ejection from Taiwan as a security risk. Meanwhile, back in Hong Kong, police have nabbed several members of that organization —some shockingly young, just 15—showing just how far their ambitions run.
Elmer Yuen and Victor Ho once bragged voting was “absolutely confidential.” That guarantee didn’t last, leaving voters now “shaking with fear and losing sleep.”
Anyone Who Participated Could Be at Risk
Let’s talk about the law. When I pressed a veteran source about whether all 15,702 “voters” also broke the law, the answer was an unambiguous yes. Simply participating in these ballots can be construed as subversion under the National Security Law—Articles 22 and 23 have that covered. So for anyone who voted, there’s genuine cause for worry. Originally, Yuen and Ho made grand promises that a million people, both locals and overseas Hongkongers, would join in. But many were already wary—it was clear from the start that voting carried serious risks, and most people didn’t buy assurances of confidentiality. Some 15,000 did go through with it, but stories of sloppy ballot handling quickly eroded trust, leaving many voters anxious about leaks. For those still in Hong Kong, this has turned into a real nightmare.
And it won’t end with voters: authorities are expected to hunt down any support staff—donors, techies, or PR boosters—relentlessly severing underground networks to prevent Hong Kong from being used as a remote-controlled base for disruption.
To sum up, police defines the “Hong Kong Parliament” as a subversive group. The warrants for the 19 fugitives are just the opening act, aimed not just at showing muscle, but at wiping out local support networks and sending a clear message to would-be backers and “voters” alike. If any of those 15,000 voters end up being prosecuted, it’s going to be a cautionary tale for anyone still thinking about flirting with such risky activism.
Lai Ting-yiu
What Say You?
** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **
Former Democratic Party chairman Wu Chi-wai traveled to Britain after his release from prison to reunite with his wife and children. Border officers detained and questioned him upon arrival. They set a hard deadline allowing him to stay for only seven days, putting deportation squarely on the table.
After several twists and turns, he was eventually granted permission to remain for six months. What happens after that period will still depend on circumstances. What exactly happened over those few days? Why did the Home Office reverse its decision more than once? Did the Foreign Office actually help Wu?
Lee Wing-tat, a former Democratic Party heavyweight who went into exile in Britain five years ago, has spent recent days helping Wu Chi-wai fight to stay in the country. Lee disclosed the sequence of events in a Facebook post today. His account suggests the Home Office wanted to keep Wu out from the start.
Lee Wing-tat exposes the full story: Wu Chi-wai detained on arrival in Britain. The photo shows the two men together in Britain recently.
The British Consulate-General in Hong Kong, meanwhile, appeared to be "pulling the cat's tail," meaning it evaded responsibility rather than offering genuine support. In the end, hawkish politicians applying last-minute pressure were the only thing that temporarily saved him from deportation.
Lee Wing-tat has lived in Britain for several years and built up a network of contacts there. So when Wu Chi-wai ran into trouble, he immediately turned to this former “big brother" for help. A support team formed quickly and spent several consecutive days lobbying officials and devising solutions for Wu. That is why Lee knew exactly what Wu had gone through.
Had Wu made prior arrangements to smooth his entry before setting off for Britain? The answer is yes. According to Lee's post, Wu and his Democratic Party friends informed senior officials at the British Consulate-General in Hong Kong before his departure.
The consulate then notified border authorities at London Heathrow Airport. When Wu arrived at immigration, border officers checked their computer system and saw an "Alert" signal. A lengthy interrogation followed, after which officers ordered him to "leave within seven days."
This raised a question for Lee Wing-tat: what message had senior consulate officials actually sent to the border authorities? He suggested two possibilities. Option A was that they asked for Wu to be allowed in. Option B was that they simply flagged an "Alert" signal. Lee believes the answer was probably Option B.
The British Consulate-General in Hong Kong falls under the Foreign Office. A Foreign Office official was present when Wu was detained by airport border officers and fully aware of what was happening. Yet that official never asked to meet the border authorities' supervisor, nor took any action to resolve the problem.
Judging from this process, Home Office border officers likely assessed Wu Chi-wai's circumstances after seeing the "Alert" signal and may have sought instructions from superiors. They nonetheless ordered him to leave within seven days. This shows the Home Office had already decided not to let him into Britain. That is why it immediately confiscated his passport, allowed him only a brief stay, and then sent him back to Hong Kong.
Wu lined up support before flying to Britain. He reached out to senior consulate officials in Hong Kong, who then messaged UK border authorities. But Lee suspects that message was just a warning flag, not a green light.
The Foreign Office showed a similar attitude at every level. From consular officials in Hong Kong to the Foreign Office staffer at the airport, none of them had any intention of helping Wu Chi-wai secure entry. The two departments appeared merely to be "pulling the cat's tail," passing the matter between them and avoiding responsibility.
Lee Wing-tat said that after Wu Chi-wai was initially allowed to enter for seven days, his support team hoped to handle the matter discreetly and find room to maneuver. Their efforts vanished like a stone sinking into the sea during the first two days. No ministerial-level Home Office official contacted them, as though the matter did not warrant attention.
Lee realized they could not wait any longer. He proposed internally that they contact parliamentarians and the media to pressure the Home Office. He did not believe legal arguments alone could change the British government's decision.
Wu Chi-wai then began giving interviews to The Times, the Associated Press and the BBC. Lee, meanwhile, contacted a group of members from both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. He asked them to write to the Home Office to express concern.
This Sunday, Lee contacted Luke de Pulford, executive director of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, and asked him to seek help from Lord Alton in the House of Lords. The veteran parliamentarian immediately wrote to Home Office Minister of State Lord Hanson. Hanson replied three hours later, saying the matter would be handled on Monday. By Monday afternoon, Lee finally learned that the Home Office would not deport Wu Chi-wai and that Wu could go to the airport to retrieve his passport.
It should be noted that the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China is an international organization that opposes China and disrupts Hong Kong. During the 2019 unrest, both Luke de Pulford and Lord Alton had close dealings with Jimmy Lai. They belong to the same political camp, whose members also include Chris Patten, the last colonial Governor of Hong Kong. This group still carries a degree of political influence, and officials remain somewhat wary of them.
Several points in Lee Wing-tat's account line up with an earlier analysis. First, the British government is wary of those who destabilize Hong Kong. It views them as a source of trouble and does not want them settling in Britain long-term, which explains its initial decision to deport Wu Chi-wai after seven days. Second, the British Consulate-General in Hong Kong shares this position and will no longer help such people relocate to Britain, in order to avoid trouble for itself. Third, with no other help available, these people can only rely on a group of China hawks to step in at the final hour.
Britain's decision to spare Wu Chi-wai for now is merely a perfunctory move to manage political pressure. Its underlying policy will not change. One online comment beneath Lee Wing-tat's post captured this well: "This is neither the first such incident, nor will it be the last."
From this, Wu Chi-wai's fate after six months remains unclear.
Lai Ting Yiu
