When the 'Legal Experts' Cut and Run: The Truth About Opposition Figures and National Security

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.

Ariel

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

For months, overseas supporters painted Jimmy Lai as frail and fading fast behind bars. His daughter even claimed his fingernails had turned green and fallen off.

But the man who walked into court today presented a different picture. Lai stepped into the dock on his own, steady and alert. He looked composed — none of the weakness or fatigue described by his family and foreign backers.

No Case for Sympathy

The court’s written judgment made its stance clear: age, health, and solitary confinement were no excuse for leniency. After reviewing detailed medical reports from the Correctional Services Department, the judge ruled that Lai has received proper, continuous medical care — and that no sentence reduction is warranted.

The report dated January 9, 2026, offered a medical snapshot: Lai takes prescribed medication for hypertension, high cholesterol, and diabetes, all under control. Tests on his heart and hearing showed no abnormalities.

He had dental issues in 2021 and received specialist treatment, with no follow-up complaints since 2022. His eyesight shows early cataracts but remains stable under observation.

Minor Ailments, Maximum Care

In mid-2024, doctors spotted fungal nail infections on his right thumb and left big toe. Lai declined topical treatment and preferred a conservative approach, which doctors continued to monitor. By late 2025, the condition remained stable, with no signs of worsening.

The report even tracked his weight: 80 kilograms in December 2020, down slightly to 79.2 in January 2026 — both figures putting him in the overweight range for Asian adults.

The defence argued the weight loss showed a health decline, but the court brushed that aside. The key question, the judge said, was not whether Lai had lost weight — but whether it mattered medically. The records said no.

Judge Draws the Line

Medical issues won’t win Lai any leniency, the judge ruled. His crimes were serious, and his own lawyers admitted his ailments weren’t life-threatening. Compassion, the court made plain, has limits when weighed against the severity of the offence.

The court added that speculation about future health decline held no weight. The Correctional Services Department has a duty to ensure proper care, and so far, has fulfilled it.

Isolation by Choice

On Lai’s solitary confinement: that was his own call. Relying on CSD testimony, the judge said Lai repeatedly requested separation from other inmates, citing fears of harassment because of his notoriety. Each time, he confirmed he did so voluntarily.

The CSD made clear that Lai continues to enjoy every right guaranteed to inmates — from family visits and letter correspondence to religious services, outdoor exercise, and full access to medical and psychological care. Every safeguard remains intact. Notably, Lai has never once complained about his medical treatment, and the court pointed out that neither he nor his lawyers disputed any of these facts.