The Jimmy Lai trial ripped the mask off "Stand with Hong Kong." Courts heard how Lai and his operatives weaponized this so-called advocacy group to pursue their "international line"—code for colluding with foreign forces to destabilize national security. But even after ringleaders Andy Li Yu-hin and Chan Tsz-wah got arrested and locked up, Stand with Hong Kong keeps on running. Someone's still pulling the strings.
Born in the chaos of the anti-extradition bill period, "Stand with Hong Kong"—also known as the "lam chau team" (SWHK)—adopted the scorched-earth slogan "If we burn, you burn with us". They've always claimed to be independent, grassroots, funded by crowdsourcing. That story fell apart in court. Evidence showed Lai bankrolled their global ad campaigns and international lobbying—specifically their push to get foreign countries to sanction China.
After the implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law, Stand with Hong Kong still did not restrain itself. It keeps churning out anti-China content online, publishing report after report. Just last month, they handed the European Union a hit list—14 Hong Kong SAR government officials and police officers they want sanctioned for alleged "human rights violations" and "abuse of force" during 2019.
A Web of Anti-China Allies
Stand with Hong Kong doesn't work alone. They team up constantly with other anti-China outfits, issuing joint statements, lobbying Washington, London, and Brussels to slap sanctions on Hong Kong SAR officials. They've publicly demanded the British government intervene to free Jimmy Lai. They've organized multiple protests in London opposing construction of the Chinese embassy in the UK.
The operation is aggressive, the activities extensive. Yet the key players hide in shadows. Where's the money coming from?
In recent years, the team's gone underground. They operate mainly through online publications and mobilization, coordinating with overseas individuals and organizations. Their website and social media? No contact persons listed. No one claiming responsibility.
The Crowdfunding Fairy Tale
They claim they "rely on crowdfunding to maintain operations". But since their last crowdfunding drive in May 2020, Stand with Hong Kong hasn't published a single shred of public information showing any subsequent fundraising activity.
So where does the cash come from? Informed sources suggest looking at Stand with Hong Kong's overseas network for answers.
Organizations working hand-in-glove with Stand with Hong Kong include the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation—run by Mark Clifford, former Next Digital Group director. There's Hong Kong Watch, funded by Mark Simon and operated primarily by Benedict Rogers. There's the Hong Kong Democracy Council, fronted by fugitive national security suspect Anna Kwok. And since 2023, Stand with Hong Kong has served as secretariat for the UK's All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong.
These "friendly organizations" form a network with crystal-clear political objectives. Through overseas advocacy and coordinated actions, their primary target is attacking the Central Government and the SAR government.
In other words: Jimmy Lai may be behind bars facing trial, but the organizations and individuals Stand with Hong Kong maintains close contact with all have direct or indirect ties to Lai. Whether this team—which brands itself a "grassroots organization"—receives operational funding and other support within this anti-China network remains the billion-dollar question.
Ariel
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
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.
