"Deformed Democracy" Was a Cancer: Why We Must Vote to Kill It

Today, December 7, marks the second election since the Legislative Council finally got back on track. Today, I can’t shake the memory of how a "deformed democracy" ravaged this chamber for years. It was a malignancy—a tumor growing from within—that trapped us in endless chaos and nearly destroyed Hong Kong. This nightmare remains burned into my mind.
 
Let’s look at the receipts from those insane years. Three absurd realities prove how a tidal wave of radicalism washed away a functioning Council. First, post-"Occupy Central," a crop of "political stars" rode a wave of extremism to besiege LegCo, degrading election quality for years. Second, during the "Black Violence" era, District Councils devolved into a "destroyers' paradise" of unprecedented disorder. Third, to appease radical voters, Pan-democrats hijacked the House Committee election for six months, paralyzing governance. The Council became an endangered structure on the verge of collapse, dragging government operations down with it. Without the Central Government stepping in to restore order, Hong Kong was finished. To stop history from repeating, everyone needs to vote on December 7.
  
The truth is, this "deformed democracy" was rotting the soil of Hong Kong politics long before "Occupy Central." The British government deliberately planted "election landmines," allowing politicians using unorthodox methods to rise. They realized the game: be radical, be outrageous, be uncouth, and you get votes. Figures like Wong Yuk-man, Albert Chan, and "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung seized power this way. Once that door opened, the Council’s normal operations were destroyed, turning the chamber into a mud-wrestling pit.
  
That was just the prelude. The subversion peaked with the 6th Legislative Council election following the 2014 "Occupy Central" movement. Driven by a passion for "rebellion," masses of young people blindly voted for fresh faces who built their brands on radicalism, ignoring their complete lack of ability or track record. The result? First-time winners included "Localist" figures dripping with "Hong Kong Independence" sentiment like Baggio Leung and Yau Wai-ching, alongside "Occupy" student leader Nathan Law.

Oath-Taking Circus: Post-"Occupy" radicals Baggio Leung and Yau Wai-ching stormed the chamber advocating independence, turning solemn oaths into a disgraceful farce.

The "Open House" of Radical Chaos
Worse still, opportunists within the Pan-democrat camp saw this worked and jumped into the fray. The prime examples were the notoriously "uncouth and aggressive" Ted Hui and the self-proclaimed radical environmentalist Eddie Chu.
  
When Baggio Leung, Yau Wai-ching, and Nathan Law stormed the Council, political insiders told me the candidacy door had been flung too wide. It became an "unguarded open house"—easy to enter, hard to clear out—guaranteeing chaos. Fortunately, their greed for victory blinded them to the risks. They played games with their inaugural oaths, effectively playing themselves into a corner and getting disqualified (DQ).
  
Even after they were ousted, the "miracle" of their election accelerated the degradation of our politics. Fanatical voters continued to back incompetent politicians just to vent rebellious angst. Even younger members of the traditional Pan-democrats started acting out to cater to this new taste. Ted Hui is the textbook example: violently snatching a female civil servant's phone and throwing foul-smelling filth in the Chamber. It became a competition of who could be the most radical, obstructing bills and making livelihood administration nearly impossible.
 
By 2019, when the anti-extradition bill unrest broke out, the Council became a disaster zone. Then came the second absurdity. During the November District Council elections, held amidst turmoil, radical candidates swarmed to grab seats. At the same time, "black-clad people" physically attacked Establishment opponents with beatings, arson, and intimidation. They won the majority, reducing the District Councils to a "destroyers' paradise." Long-serving community councilors were wiped out, marking an unprecedented and unbearable degradation of our institutions.

Filth in the Chamber: "Uncouth" politician Ted Hui proved his disruptive intent by literally throwing foul-smelling rot during a Council meeting.

Paralyzing the System From Within
Inside LegCo, Pan-democrats brought the street riots into the Chamber, competing to perform "radical shows." The most absurd spectacle was Civic Party member Dennis Kwok holding the House Committee Chairman election hostage. He "played games" for over half a year. Sixteen meetings passed without electing a chairman, blocking massive amounts of government bills. Forced by the situation, even moderate Pan-democrats joined the madness, turning the Chamber into a real-life version of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest."
  
Recently, some claim the reformed Legislative Council has lost its monitoring function. This is 100% a fallacy. The Council back then was thoroughly wrecked; normal operations were paralyzed. What monitoring was there? Government administration was dragged down, pushing us to the brink of "mutual destruction" (laam caau).
  
Thankfully, the Central Government stepped in at the critical moment to pull the Council back on the right track. If "deformed democracy" had continued, Hong Kong would have derailed and fallen off a cliff, destroyed in a single day.
 
To prevent this painful history from repeating, everyone must vote enthusiastically on December 7. Support the Legislative Council moving forward on the correct track.

Lai Ting-yiu

What Say You?

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

The most consequential national security trial yet to come is also the one with the most unanswered questions — and at the centre of it is a man who almost made it out.

Monday (Feb 23) was "Renri" (人日) — the seventh day of the Lunar New Year, meant to be a day of celebration for all people. But for the 12 defendants in the "35+ Subversion Case," there was nothing to celebrate. The Court of Appeal dismissed all their appeals against both conviction and sentencing in full. Unless they push it all the way to the Court of Final Appeal, this case is done. That brings two of the three major national security cases to a close — the other being the Jimmy Lai trial. What remains is the Joshua Wong case, expected to go to trial around mid-year. Like Lai's, it reaches into the highest levels of American politics, and it will almost certainly expose a trove of behind-the-scenes dealings that will shake Hong Kong to its core. The trial is close enough that the details don't need spelling out here. But one mystery absolutely does: Wong was once Washington's darling — so why did he never make it out, while his co-conspirator Nathan Law did? An investigative report by American journalists cracked open the story.

Wong's trial is the last big national security case standing — and the most explosive one yet. How did he never make it out?

Wong's role in the Occupy Central movement and the 2019 unrest needs no introduction. In June last year, while already serving a prison term at Stanley Prison on sedition charges, he was arrested again and charged under the Hong Kong National Security Law with conspiracy to collude with foreign forces to endanger national security. His second pre-trial review at the Magistrates' Court came on 21 November last year, with the next hearing set for 6 March; the full trial at the High Court is expected to begin around mid-year. This case carries weight every bit as significant as the Jimmy Lai trial — the spotlight it commands will be enormous.

The Charges Are Grave

The prosecution alleges that between July and November 2020, Wong — together with Nathan Law and others yet to be identified — conspired in Hong Kong to solicit foreign governments and institutions to impose sanctions against the Hong Kong SAR and the People's Republic of China, and to seriously obstruct the government in enacting and enforcing its laws and policies. The charges carry a potential sentence of life imprisonment. What exactly Wong and Law did, and which foreign officials were involved, the prosecution will lay out in full when the trial begins.

The public has long asked some uncomfortable questions. Did Joshua Wong ever consider fleeing before or after the National Security Law came into force at the end of June 2020? If so, why did it never happen? Did the US government try to help him get out? An investigative report by two American journalists answered part of the puzzle — and sources familiar with the matter, when contacted by Hong Kong media, broadly confirmed what it said.

Wong Begged Washington for Help

The night before the National Security Law took effect, Wong reached out through a senator's adviser to appeal directly to President Trump for help. At the same time, he sent an email to then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, explicitly asking to be helped to "travel to the United States to seek political asylum, by whatever means necessary". That email tells you everything. Wong knew exactly how dangerous his situation had become — and he was betting his future on American goodwill.

  

Around the same time, Wong arranged to meet two officials from the US Consulate General in Hong Kong at St. John's Building, directly across the street from the consulate. He made clear he wanted to walk in and seek refuge. He was turned away on the spot. When Pompeo saw the email, he consulted with his staff and arrived at the same conclusion: letting Wong through the consulate doors was simply not an option — Washington feared Beijing would retaliate by forcing the US consulate in Hong Kong to close entirely.

State Department officials went further, exploring a covert plan to smuggle Wong out of Hong Kong by sea — routing him through Taiwan or the Philippines before eventually reaching the United States. That option was killed too, on the grounds that any such attempt would very likely be intercepted by Chinese authorities, triggering a diplomatic crisis. When the accounting was done, American interests won out — and Joshua Wong was coldly abandoned.

By that point, Nathan Law had already made it out. Seizing Pompeo's visit to London, Law met the Secretary of State privately and raised the question of rescuing Wong one more time — and was once again turned away without sympathy. In September 2020, Wong was arrested on sedition charges and imprisoned two months later. Any remaining window for escape had sealed shut.

Law Moved Fast — and Made It

 

Nathan Law is named as a co-conspirator in the charges against Wong — meaning that if arrested, they face the same jeopardy. But Law proved far more calculating than Wong. Shortly before the National Security Law took effect, he quietly slipped away, eventually confirming his presence in the United Kingdom on 13 July 2020. He even staged a moment of wistful sentiment, declaring: "With this parting, I do not yet know when I shall return... May glory come soon!" — words that, in the circumstances, could not have sounded more hollow.

Same charges, same case — but Law ran, and Wong didn't. One man made it out clean. The other is still paying the price.

Joshua Wong — sharp-witted all his life — took one step too many in trusting the Americans, and that delay cost him everything. The US government, in the name of "national interest," discarded him without hesitation. As his trial approaches, the reality is this: placing any further faith in American support would be the last illusion he can afford.

Lai Ting-yiu