Skip to Content Facebook Feature Image

The Democratic Party's Suicide: Radicalism, Infighting, and Jimmy Lai’s Cash

Blog

The Democratic Party's Suicide: Radicalism, Infighting, and Jimmy Lai’s Cash
Blog

Blog

The Democratic Party's Suicide: Radicalism, Infighting, and Jimmy Lai’s Cash

2025-12-15 20:12 Last Updated At:20:12

The Democratic Party—once Hong Kong's supposed opposition heavyweight—is dead. December 14th marked the end of operations, leaving founding elder Fred Li weeping on the street, admitting he "never imagined today’s situation." But let's look at the evidence: this wasn't an accident. Plagued by decades of bitter internal factional wars and a disastrous pivot to radicalism during the 2019 riots, the party didn't just fade away; it walked willingly into its own destruction.

Formed in 1994 via a merger of the United Democrats and Meeting Point, the party once dominated the Legislative Council. But the cracks appeared early. By 1998, the so-called "Young Turks"—figures like To Kwan-hang, Albert Chan, and Andrew Cheng—staged a coup during leadership elections. They voted down the "Meeting Point faction's" Anthony Cheung, forcing Lau Chin-shek into the Vice-Chairmanship instead.

The ideological rift widened in 1999. When the "Young Turks" tried to push a minimum wage policy into the party platform, the general meeting shot it down. From that moment, the gap between the aggressive youth wing and the party elders kept widening

The inevitable split happened in 2002. Hardliners To Kwan-hang and Albert Chan walked out to establish the League of Social Democrats. Founding Vice-Chairman Anthony Cheung had enough, quitting in 2004 to join the Executive Council the following year.

Internal Rot and Public Scandals

Between internal fractures and the rise of rivals like the Civic Party, the Democratic Party's grip began to slip. The Legislative Council elections in 2004 and 2008 saw a sharp, quantifiable reduction in their seats.

It wasn't just bad politics; it was bad behavior. The party was mired in scandal. Take the year 2000: James To was exposed for funneling government funds to rent property from "Wui Biu Company"—a firm he held himself—in a blatant suspected conflict of interest. That same year, Ho Wai-to was arrested in Dongguan for soliciting prostitutes.

Then came the bizarre "True Brothers Incident" in 2006. An anonymous leaker dumped emails from the "Reformist" faction, alleging infiltration and claims that members were being "bought off" by officials. Elders Martin Lee and Szeto Wah launched a panic-stricken investigation. Years later, founding member Howard Lam confessed he was the leak—claiming Szeto Wah had actually planted him as an "undercover agent" to spy on his own party members.

By the illegal "Occupy Central" movement in 2014, the political landscape had shifted toward radicalization. The Democratic Party joined the fray but failed to lead. Desperate to stay relevant, they fielded younger candidates in the 2016 Legislative Council election. While Lam Cheuk-ting, Ted Hui, and Roy Kwong helped boost their count to seven seats, this victory came at a cost: radicals like Lam and Hui took the stage, sidelining the moderate elders.

Crossing the Red Line: 2019

During the 2019 anti-extradition turmoil, the mask came off. Instead of dissociating from the chaos, the Democratic Party aligned itself with violent forces. They were frequently spotted at riot sites, obstructing police and shielding violent demonstrators. Chairman Wu Chi-wai provided the defining image of this folly at Tim Mei Avenue, screaming "I want to see the commander" at police lines—a "classic moment" of performative obstruction.

Riding a wave of extreme social hostility, they swept 91 seats in the District Council elections that year. But this was a pyrrhic victory. By embracing extremism to win votes, they passed the point of no return, sowing the very seeds of the total collapse we are witnessing today.

Inside the legislature, the tactics were just as destructive. They relentlessly filibustered to paralyze governance. Ted Hui turned the chamber into a circus, at one point throwing a stink bomb during the National Anthem Bill debate. By late 2020, Hui fled to Denmark under the false pretense of official business, jumped bail, and quit the party. Now a fugitive wanted under the National Security Law, he spends his time in Australia clamoring for sanctions against his home city.

When the 2020 Legislative Council election was postponed, most opposition members initially planned to stay on. However, following the disqualification of four members—including Alvin Yeung and Dennis Kwok—the Democratic Party staged a mass resignation. Their seat count hit "zero," a self-inflicted wound that removed them from the political board entirely.

Subversion and the Money Trail

In 2021, the opposition attempted an illegal "primary election" designed to seize a majority, indiscriminately veto the budget, and paralyze the government. The Democratic Party eagerly participated in this scheme. Consequently, key figures including Wu Chi-wai, Helena Wong, Lam Cheuk-ting, Andrew Wan, James To, and Roy Kwong were arrested for subversion of state power. The first four have since been prosecuted and handed prison sentences ranging from over 4 to nearly 7 years.

And then there's the money. Evidence from the collusion trial of Jimmy Lai exposes the financial lifeline. Transaction records reveal that between 2013 and 2020, Lai’s aide Mark Simon received HK$118.66 million from Lai. Given Simon’s salary was only about HK$1.2 million, the bulk of this cash was clearly not for him. The funds were funneled to various opposition groups in 72 separate transfers. Crucially, "Lais Hotel"—a company controlled by Lai and Simon—was caught remitting a staggering HK$5 million directly to the Democratic Party headquarters. 

Looking back at the Democratic Party’s 30-year trajectory, the conclusion is inescapable. Defined by ceaseless infighting, an addiction to radicalism, and a refusal to cut ties with violence, they dug their own grave. They passed the point of no return long ago, marching blindly down a dead-end road to self-destruction.




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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

Recommended Articles