After serving time in the “35+” subversion case, Andrew Chiu Ka-yin is putting on the record: the 2019 “Black Riots” and the so-called “primary elections” were not some organic political wave, but a “scheme” steered by people with ulterior motives. It matters because it goes straight to intent and orchestration. In an exclusive TVB News interview, he admitted that he hated himself for not able to disconnect himself with the situation and the extreme violence at that time.
Chiu, sentenced to seven years, was released early in late October after sentence deductions, becoming the first national security prisoner freed early since the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance took effect.
Chiu says he owed Hong Kong people the truth—and he’s finally saying it.
In the “35+” case, Chiu didn’t just appear as a defendant—he also served as a accomplice witness, and the court materials listed him as an organizer alongside Benny Tai Yiu-ting, Au Nok-hin, and Ben Chung Kam‑lun. The court sentenced him as a “principal offender” for conspiracy to commit subversion against state power, setting the term at seven years. He ultimately walked out after nearly five years served, following deductions.
Chiu told TVB News he wanted to assist the prosecution within the first months of detention, framing it as a duty to tell the truth although he feared retaliation after release.
When violence crossed the line
Chiu pinpointed two episodes from the anti-extradition bill period that, in his words, disgusted him most. One involved student “Kin Chai” Tsang Chi-kin in a riot case—Chiu said Tsang was persuaded to pay for an escape and then “betrayed.” The other was the Ma On Shan incident in which an elderly man was set on fire after arguing with protesters. Chiu said the situation had spiraled into something frightening, yet he stayed silent because he was already entangled in the political camp and felt bound by bloc loyalty. He now says he hates himself for not speaking up then.
He said he does not agree with violence—and he cast himself not only as a former participant in the political current, but also as a victim of violence. In November 2019, he was attacked outside Taikoo Shing Centre by a middle-aged man, Chan Chun, who stabbed him and bit off his left ear; Chan was later sentenced to 14 years in prison.
Chiu’s core argument is blunt: from the amendment storm to riots to the so-called “primary elections,” he now sees the entire arc as a coordinated “scheme,” manipulated by people with ulterior motives to strike at the SAR government and the country’s constitutional order. On that basis, he said he wants to apologize to the country, Hong Kong, and the general public, and he stressed he won’t return to politics anytime soon—and won’t emigrate either.
As an insider put it, Chiu’s confession forces Hong Kong people to confront the level of violence seen in 2019, describing it as reaching the level of terrorist attacks. Jimmy Lai and his Apple Daily as advocates of “no differentiation between peaceful and valiant protesters,” makes him the instigator and chief culprit.
The Apple Daily playbook
Yesterday (December 15) Jimmy Lai was convicted on three counts: conspiracy to publish seditious publications and collusion with foreign forces. The court's judgment summary—written by three National Security Law judges—puts him at the forefront as protests morphed into a resistance movement. Both Lai and Apple Daily were "leading the charge," according to the judges' written reasoning. If you want the "receipts," that's where they are: in the court's own words.
An insider who watched the interview offered a straightforward read: Chiu's remorse is genuine. That matters because it reflects how the Central Government and the SAR Government enforce the law—strictly, but with room for mercy. Truly repentant national security prisoners get a shot at early release.
The warning is equally direct: diehard anti-Hong Kong elements should not expect leniency. In other words, remorse may open doors, but obstinacy won’t—and the legal system will treat them accordingly.
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.
