Let’s be honest: the narrative going into this Legislative Council election was bleak. Following the tragedy of the Tai Po fire, the pundits were out in force, predicting a turnout that would "definitely be lower than the last one." They claimed the heavy atmosphere hanging over society made a final promotional push impossible. Even the six major chambers of commerce had to scrap their voting discount campaign, further dampening the mood. The critics said it was over before it began.
But the numbers tell a different story: turnout has actually surpassed the previous election. This proves the SAR government didn't just weather the storm—they met the difficulties head-on and played a strong game against the odds.
What we witnessed here was the sheer, united mobilization of the civil service. It was more than bureaus and departments going through the motions to promote the vote; the civil servants themselves showed up. The evidence is undeniable: look at the bureaus coming out in full force with a shared mindset.
Dedication in Action: Civil servants wait in long queues at the designated polling station
If you want proof of commitment, look at the Civil Servant Designated Polling Stations (CSDPS). At their peak, these stations saw massive queues with wait times stretching up to two hours. Yet, the civil servants in line weren't complaining. That silence speaks volumes—it shows a team united in heart, contributing significant strength to secure the legitimacy of this election.
Logistics Win Votes
The tactical adjustments to the schedule played a massive role in this success. By opening the polls an hour early and keeping them open an hour later, the government captured the demographic that critics usually write off: commuters working long hours and travelers returning to Hong Kong. When you see that evening spike in turnout, it’s clear evidence that residents returning from the Chinese Mainland went straight to the ballot box.
The infrastructure expansion was equally critical. The government set up new "Near Boundary Polling Stations" (NBPSs) at the airport and the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, deployed outreach stations for care homes, and established dedicated lines for medical staff. These weren't just gestures; they successfully converted citizens who originally found travel inconvenient—or had no intention to vote—into active participants.
Consider the granular handling of the situation near Wang Fuk Court in Tai Po. Despite the chaos of the fire forcing three polling stations to relocate, the government didn't leave residents stranded—they rolled out shuttle buses. Media interviews with fire victims confirm they used these shuttles, explicitly stating they had received government aid and viewed the new Legislative Council as vital for their future help.
The takeaway is clear: the government successfully tethered the election to the path of post-disaster reconstruction, convincing citizens that selecting new councilors is their fastest ticket back to normalcy.
An insider concluded sharply: where there is a will, there is a way. Through disciplined unity and hard work, the SAR government fought this tough election battle—and won.
Ariel
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
Since the Hong Kong National Security Law (NSL) implemented in 2020, we’ve seen plenty of high-profile cases hit the courts, and the verdicts are rolling in. But the real issue is a pattern that’s too obvious to ignore: whenever the heat turns up on these major national security charges, the people with legal degrees are the first ones to run for the exits, cut ties, or plead guilty to save their own skin.
The 'Gang of Four' Breaks Rank
Make no mistake: Martin Lee, the founding chairman of the Democratic Party and long branded as one of the "Gang of Four" damaging Hong Kong, spent years lobbying in Europe and the US alongside former Chief Secretary Anson Chan. Their goal: begging foreign politicians to slap sanctions on SAR government officials.
Democratic Party founding chairman Martin Lee, who knew when to stop talking.
However, right before the NSL came into effect in 2020, both Lee and Chan suddenly hit the brakes to find a way out.
Just weeks before the law took effect on June 30, 2020, Martin Lee sat down with The New York Times and suddenly changed his tune. In that interview, the seasoned Senior Counsel had plenty to say about opposing violence, even slamming the "laam chau" (mutual destruction) crowd as "haven’t got a clue". He bluntly stated: "If you start the revolution, and then you’re completely defeated, many people will die with you. So how does that help Hong Kong?" He even claimed he had "always stood by One Country, Two Systems" and criticized independence calls for costing Hong Kong international support.
What matters is the timing. Commentators noted that while the NSL isn't retrospective, it clearly defines "collusion with foreign forces." Martin Lee, as the most senior “Senior Counsel” in the game, knew exactly where the risks were. By high-profilely "cutting ties" in foreign media, he was effectively announcing in advance that he wouldn't dare cross the line once the law was in force.
The receipts show Lee isn’t new to this—he’s been arrested three times for unauthorized processions. Take the "8.18 Unauthorized Assembly Case" of 2019: he was convicted of both "organizing" and "participating," landing an 11-month sentence suspended for 24 months.
Lee and six others, however, wouldn't just accept the verdict. They appealed, managing to get the "organizing" charge quashed by the Court of Appeal, but the "participating" conviction stuck. Not content to leave it there, they dragged the case all the way to the Court of Final Appeal—only to suffer a final, definitive defeat.
Admitting Guilt to Save Themselves
Then you have Alvin Yeung, the former Civic Party leader and practicing barrister, who pleaded guilty in the "35+ Subversion Case." Yeung pleaded guilty while in remand, cooperated with police, and expressed remorse early. He ended up with 5 years and 1 month, and estimates suggest he’ll be walking free this March.
Alvin Yeung, former Civic Party leader and barrister, changed his tune once he was the one facing jail time.
During his mitigation in September 2024, Yeung admitted that as a lawyer, confessing to a criminal offense was embarrassing. He acknowledged his naivety and blind passion led him astray, dragging Civic Party members into "this hopeless and illegal scheme" and causing his family immense anxiety. He even admitted his rhetoric worsened the political situation and promised to quit politics for good.
But consider this hypocrisy: back in 2017, at a rally for the anti-North East New Territories development case defendants, Yeung famously said that for those imprisoned, "this criminal record makes their lives more colorful." That tune changed pretty quickly to "regret" and "embarrassment" once he was the one in handcuffs facing national security charges.
Exiting the Stage Entirely
Another example is Yeung’s former colleague, Tanya Chan. In September 2020—right after the NSL landed—Chan, a barrister and Civic Party co-founder, suddenly decided to quit the party and politics altogether. She claimed major brain surgery meant health and family were her only priorities. She then moved solo to Taiwan, ditching the barrister robes to become a chef in a private kitchen.
After fleeing to Taiwan, Tanya Chan went from barrister to chef, keeping a low profile.
And let’s not forget the classic case: Benny Tai. The former HKU law professor and mastermind behind the "35+ Subversion Case" was categorized as a "principal offender." Yet, even he pleaded guilty as early as the third mention. As a legal scholar, Tai knew the math: pleading guilty gets you a one-third sentence reduction. The earlier, the better. The court set a 15-year starting point, but thanks to his plea, he got 10 years.
Benny Tai, the legal scholar who did the math and pleaded guilty early in the "35+ Subversion Case." (Image source: Sing Tao Daily)(圖片來源:星島日報)
An insider puts it bluntly: these examples prove that the people who know the law best—barristers and scholars—know that once the evidence is irrefutable, they have zero chance of winning. They dissociate or plead guilty immediately to minimize the damage.
The key point: deep down, these people knew exactly where the "legal lines" were and that they had violated the National Security Law. Repenting early and backpedaling fast was simply the smartest play they had left.
