Skip to Content Facebook Feature Image

Two Missteps, One Rude Awakening for Wu Chi-wai and Wan Siu-kin

Blog

Two Missteps, One Rude Awakening for Wu Chi-wai and Wan Siu-kin
Blog

Blog

Two Missteps, One Rude Awakening for Wu Chi-wai and Wan Siu-kin

2026-06-04 10:24 Last Updated At:17:21

Of the 45 individuals sentenced in the "35+ subversion case," 19 have already served their time and left prison, while the Democratic Party's chairman Wu Chi-wai and vice-chairman Wan Siu-kin are counting days to end their prison life of more than four years. Wu is set for release on June 30, Wan on July 4 – walking free just days apart.

Both men were originally moderates within the party. Yet they let the radicals lead them off the edge. They ended up as convicts – just like a nightmare. Former pan-democrat acquaintances speak of them with deep sighs. The duo made two fatal missteps: they followed the crowd to protect their vote share, unable to break free even when danger loomed; and most fatally, they were blindly manipulated by legal academic and "mastermind" Tai Yiu-ting, and all drove off the cliff together. Now that the dream has shattered, word is that both have grown disillusioned with politics. They plan to retire from public life, relocate abroad with their families, and bid farewell to that era of madness.

Former Democratic Party chairman Wu Chi-wai walks free June 30 — two fatal missteps turned a career into a conviction.

Former Democratic Party chairman Wu Chi-wai walks free June 30 — two fatal missteps turned a career into a conviction.

In this subversion case, Wu Chi-wai and Wan Siu-kin were both classified as "active participants." They pleaded guilty early and received a one-third sentence reduction. Factoring in their prior public service records, they shaved more than two years off their terms – hence their release within weeks. Their early return to freedom is tied to their timely pragmatism.

According to insiders, like the "three members of the Civic Party," both men decided at the outset of prosecution to plead guilty decisively. After doing the calculations, they saw no point in playing the hero, clinging to a position, and enduring extra years behind bars. They also dropped their appeals to avoid any further complications.

Vice-chairman Wan Siu-kin follows on July 4 — a moderate swept up by radicals, too afraid to cut ties.

Vice-chairman Wan Siu-kin follows on July 4 — a moderate swept up by radicals, too afraid to cut ties.

Fellow Democratic Party member Wong Pik-wan, however, miscalculated. Had she pleaded guilty at the outset and not sought bail pending trial, she would likely have been released around the same time as Wu and Wan. But sources say she received a tip suggesting her case was relatively minor and that acquittal was likely – so she decided to fight it and take her chances.

Things did not go as she hoped. She is now set to remain imprisoned until the end of 2030. She has appealed against both her conviction and sentence to the Court of Final Appeal; how it ends will depend on her fortune.

Former Secretary for Transport and Housing Cheung Bing-leung – once a senior figure in the Democratic Party and a long-time colleague of the two men – wrote in his mitigation letter that they were rational politicians. Even when they disagreed with government policy, they were seen as moderate and pragmatic. If that was truly their character, why did they appear to suddenly turn radical and irrational in their later years – especially after the anti-amendment movement erupted?

Former pan-democrat acquaintances point to several reasons. First, the younger generation within the Democratic Party was inclined toward radical tactics and confrontation to stand out. They viewed the party's "old guard culture" as too conservative and outdated, and kept pushing for change. Hui Chi-fung – who rose to prominence through his disruptive tactics – was a prime example.

These figures initially found it hard to gain traction. But after the Occupy movement, and then the anti-amendment protests, the wave of radicalism surged ever higher, and the younger faction's approach gradually became the mainstream.

Second, in this broader atmosphere, young voters – swept up in the fervor – increasingly turned toward "localist" and "resistance" factions chanting radical slogans, as well as a wave of newly emerged political newcomers. They dismissed traditional pan-democrat politicians with contempt.

Faced with this shift – and with the tide of militant struggle from the anti-amendment valiant riots crashing in – Wu Chi-wai, Wan Siu-kin, and the traditional pan-democrats felt compelled to reinvent themselves. They entered a race to out-radical each other against the new forces challenging them.

Consider this: at a Legislative Council meeting in May 2019, Wu Chi-wai – who had always presented himself as refined and gentlemanly – turned ferocious. He launched into a verbal tirade against then-Chief Executive Carrie Lam. When the President of the Council ejected him from the chamber, he screamed: "Carrie Lam, you're a waste of air, you old hag." He had become an entirely different person.

By then, the wave of radicalism was dragging the pan-democrat heavyweights along. Wu Chi-wai and Wan Siu-kin had no choice but to go with the flow. This carried them into two fatal missteps.

The first was following the radical forces in lockstep. Out of fear of being sidelined, they refused to draw a clear line with the "valiant faction," and even endorsed the "unity of peaceful and militant" approach. They became unable to extricate themselves, drifting ever further toward the extreme.

Then in 2020, Jimmy Lai drove the "35+ primary election" initiative while Tai Yiu-ting operated it at the frontline. At this point, Wu Chi-wai compounded his earlier mistakes by throwing himself into this "dangerous game." Warnings had already been issued that the primary might violate the National Security Law, and that continuing to participate was playing with fire and risked running afoul of the law.

Former pan-democrat acquaintances note that although Wu Chi-wai and other Democratic Party heavyweights knew there were risks, not taking part would have left them with no chance of winning in Legislative Council elections – the worst case being total annihilation. This calculation led them to underestimate the danger of the primary's illegality.

They were also misled by "law professor" Tai Yiu-ting, who assured them the primary did not violate the law. This misstep ultimately sent the Democratic Party and Civic Party leadership tumbling into the pot together.

There are no "ifs" in life, and mistakes cannot be rewound. Wu Chi-wai and Wan Siu-kin can only treat it as a bad dream and start anew. Their families have already relocated overseas, it is said. Upon release, both men will also leave Hong Kong, retire from public life, keep their hands clean of politics, and say goodbye to that era of madness.

Lai Ting-yiu




What Say You?

** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **

America's press-freedom myth just took a serious hit. The Justice Department has subpoenaed four New York Times reporters over an alleged violation of federal criminal law. The FBI has opened its own investigation. Both moves target the paper's exposé on inadequate anti-missile defenses aboard the president's new plane.

Defense Secretary Hegseth unveils "mole-hunt squad," vowing to root out leakers feeding reporters.

Defense Secretary Hegseth unveils "mole-hunt squad," vowing to root out leakers feeding reporters.

The White House has long nursed grudges against the press. Now, in a fury, it has escalated from threats to outright intimidation, deploying subpoenas and detentions alike. As the saying goes, there is no smoke without fire. Someone inside government must be leaking, and that conviction pushed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to announce a special task force. Working hand-in-hand with the Justice Department, the task force aims to root out the "moles."

The showdown between the White House and the press is only heating up, and the real fireworks may still lie ahead.

Trump's sudden switch to the old Air Force One after NATO sparked media exposés, igniting his fury and a subpoena crackdown.

Trump's sudden switch to the old Air Force One after NATO sparked media exposés, igniting his fury and a subpoena crackdown.

The Plane-Swap Spark

The trigger behind this clash was the so-called "plane-swap incident." After Trump wrapped up the NATO summit in Turkey, his security team abruptly switched him onto the old Air Force One for departure. He skipped the new plane gifted by Qatar entirely, and that alone raised eyebrows.

The New York Times soon reported why. The new aircraft's missile-defense systems were inadequate, the paper said, posing a security risk that forced officials to fall back on the old plane. The White House flatly denied the report, and Trump reportedly flew into a rage. The Justice Department wasted no time, issuing subpoenas to the paper's reporters almost immediately.

There is more to this story. FBI agents reportedly showed up at the New York Times offices before the story even went to print. They demanded the paper pull the piece and reveal its sources.

The paper's leadership flatly refused. In response, the Justice Department broke with convention. Rather than identifying the leaker first, it went straight after the reporters with subpoenas, escalating pressure on the press.

This is not the first time the White House has tried to put reporters in the hot seat. Back in April, a US Air Force F-15E was shot down over Iranian airspace and the pilot went missing after ejecting. Both the New York Times and Axios covered the story.

Iran's military happened to launch a massive search operation around the same time. Whether the two events were connected remains unclear. Still, Trump was quick to blame the media, threatening to jail both the reporters and the leaker.

The White House apparently could not find hard evidence, so it ultimately took no action. That failure only deepened its resentment toward the press, and officials waited for the right moment to strike back hard. This time, the plane-swap incident gave the administration its pretext to wield the legal hammer, and it is determined to teach reporters a lesson they will not forget.

The Pentagon's "Mole Hunt"

The crackdown on "moles" by the Defense Department and the Justice Department has also ramped up. Hegseth posted a video on X yesterday announcing that the Pentagon has teamed up with the Justice Department to form a special task force. Its mission: hunt down whoever has been feeding information to the media, and anyone caught with solid evidence will face the full force of the law.

He said the Pentagon's Office of General Counsel can now require any department unit to hand over information and records tied to leak investigations within 48 hours. Full cooperation is mandatory, with no room for delay or evasion. He also issued a stern warning, declaring that "access to confidential and secret information is a sacred trust, and those who betray that trust will be met with the full force of the law".

Both Hegseth and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche are die-hard Trump loyalists. That alone signals this crackdown comes directly from Trump himself, and it is designed to make heads roll, with some officials facing criminal charges. Even without hard evidence, suspects are still likely to be pushed out of their jobs.

The Pentagon has done this before. Last year it investigated several leak cases, resulting in a number of officials being suspended, including Deputy Chief of Staff Darin Selnick and Senior Adviser Dan Caldwell. Both have since quietly disappeared from their posts.

A Hunt That Cannot Succeed

Some analysts point out a hard truth. Hegseth may be on the warpath, but the Pentagon's "mole problem" could prove impossible to fully stamp out. Since Trump's return and Hegseth's takeover of the Defense Department, internal personnel purges have stirred up widespread resentment, making it easy for reporters to find disgruntled insiders willing to talk. With so many potential leakers around, there is no way to seal every crack.

Hegseth himself is not exactly clean either. Shortly after taking office, he got caught up in the "Signalgate" scandal, leaking secret plans for a US strike on Houthi forces in a group chat. That controversy caused quite the uproar. Having broken the rules himself, how can he expect his subordinates to keep their mouths shut without complaint?

Perhaps the funniest comment came from a netizen who suggested the task force should start by investigating the bartender at Hegseth's favorite watering hole. Given his well-known fondness for drink, the odds of him spilling military secrets over a few rounds are hardly low. In the end, they might just discover that the real "leaker" was Hegseth all along.

Recommended Articles