Police smash a hidden plot. On December 11 and 12, the National Security Department rounded up nine local men running secret military-style training in dingy industrial units. Some had even shown up at the Tai Po Wang Fuk Court fire scene decked out in black-clad riot gear, itching for chaos.
Hong Kong cops pull no punches. National Security chief superintendent Li Kwai-wah announces the first-ever bust under Section 13 of the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance—illegal drilling. That means offering or joining weapon drills, military exercises, or tactical formations without proper approval. Once convicted, defendants face up to seven years behind bars. Worse if foreign forces pull the strings: 10 years max.
Guns, Bombs, and Terror Vibes
The Insider spots the real red flags here. These aren't weekend warriors—they're diving into firearms training and bomb-making.
First, as Security Secretary Chris Tang Ping-keung points out: forget the label, judge the poison—offensive weapons, military maneuvers, formation drills. Cops seize homemade explosives with fuses primed to blow, plus 3D printers churning out gun parts. This screams bomb plots and crime sprees, way beyond "training." Alarming is an understatement.
Police keep dismantling these nightmares. They've cracked explosives and firearms rings, gutted terror cells. This bust screams terrorism brewing—like the judge in the Caritas Medical Centre bomb plot warned: a straight-up war on society.
Second, some of these guys were spotted at the Tai Po blaze.
Intelligence paints a grim picture. Some arrestees lurked at Tai Po's Wang Fuk Court fire in classic 2019 anti-extradition garb. One suspect brags about using his new skills—fighting, guns, knives—to target cops and officials if riots reignite. Others trash the government online for "lousy relief," fanning hate against the SAR.
These aren't new faces. Some rioted multiple times in 2019's anti-extradition mess. Take Mr. Li: he ran a Telegram hate group plotting petrol bombs, guns, even a "massacre." Jailed 29 months for sedition and wounding conspiracy.
Out on parole by late 2024, still under supervision—one kept linking up and drilling illegally. No surprise—the Office for Safeguarding National Security called it: ulterior motives stir in crises, spewing lies to wreck relief efforts.
Foreign Shadows Loom Large?
Moreover, whether foreign funding is involved.
The Hong Kong Police Force stayed on the hunt. They'll track these plotters, make more arrests if needed. Top probe: involvement of foreign forces and money? The law slams extra time for that meddling.
History repeats. Police had already nailed three from the banned “Hong Kong Democratic Independence Union” for secession conspiracy. Fugitive founder Keung Ka-wai built a fake "army," trained recruits for "Hong Kong independence." One kid defendant of just 15, suckered into jail.
These overseas fugitives won't quit. They spew rhetoric, lure HongKong youth into the trap, biding time for "resistance." SAR government banned “Hong Kong Parliament” and the “Hong Kong Democratic Independence Union”: starves their funds, warns everyone: don't get poisoned and snared.
Bottom line: Hong Kong looks calm, but radicals churn below the surface. Stay sharp, and beware of those hell-bent on shattering the peace.
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.
