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

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.

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.

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 **

A nation’s rise or fall hinges on its ability to retain its brightest minds. The New York Times recently reported that American immigrant and Nobel laureate Omar Yaghi is resigning from the University of California, Berkeley. He is heading to Tsinghua University to lead an artificial intelligence institute for materials research. 

Make no mistake: this move involves more than an attractive contract. As a Palestinian refugee, Yaghi fiercely opposes Donald Trump's anti-immigration policies and fears they threaten scientific development. Immigrants make up 40 percent of American Nobel laureates. Coupled with drastic government funding cuts, experts are warning of the most severe scholar exodus in a decade.

Omar Yaghi is an international authority in materials science and a recent Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry. He recently abandoned the US to join Tsinghua University. He was born a Palestinian refugee and later immigrated to America. His profound anxiety over Trump's anti-immigration agenda is a primary catalyst for his departure.

The migration of elite research talent operates on a mix of pull and push factors. Yaghi’s successful recruitment highlights China’s unwavering commitment to talent development and drawing in top foreign scholars. Water flows down, but human ambition reaches upward. These scholars will only jump ship if they see limitless potential for complementary development in China. For Yaghi, the conditions were perfect.

The New York Times interviewed Ram Seshadri, a chemistry professor at UC Santa Barbara. He noted that Yaghi’s move signals a fundamental shift in the technological rivalry between China and the US. "They've overtaken us in many areas of materials science and chemistry," he said, referring to China. "They're willing to invest very large sums of money to attract new talent." In fact, China currently outpaces the US in publishing top-tier chemistry papers.

The reality is Yaghi's exodus from the US is deeply intertwined with his personal history. The report shed light on his obscure origins. He was born in a Palestinian refugee camp in Jordan and grew up in a squalid room devoid of water or electricity before immigrated to the US when he was 15 years old.

Tsinghua University wooed Yaghi with a highly lucrative employment package. He takes charge of a cutting-edge institute utilizing AI to synthesize new materials. Tsinghua Party Secretary Qiu Yong and President Li Luming both attended his appointment ceremony last week.

This immigrant background leaves him deeply alienated by Trump’s anti-immigration policies. Before flying to Sweden to accept his Nobel Prize last year, he shared his fears with The New York Times. He is dissatisfied with these policies and worries they will dismantle the collaborative system built by universities, corporations, and the government. He sees this as a direct blow to American scientific progress.

The psychological toll of Trump’s brutal stance on top scholars is severe. Last year alone, three American Nobel laureates were born overseas. Immigrants have claimed 40 percent of all Nobel Prizes since the start of the century. Under the current political climate, a growing number of scientists feel the US is no longer a viable home.

But the real issue driving this brain drain is the relentless slashing of scientific research funding. As the pie shrinks, researchers battle over dwindling resources and face immense frustration. A US medical journal revealed that the National Institutes of Health abruptly canceled 700 grants worth $1.8 billion in the first quarter of last year. The National Science Foundation also saw its research budget axed by nearly $1.4 billion.

To exert political pressure on academic institutions, Trump has systematically dismantled numerous research grants. Even financial subsidies for Harvard University have been frozen.

These converging negative factors are leaving top scholars disillusioned and eager to abandon the US. Data from a Nature scientific job platform shows a 35 percent year-on-year surge in American scientists seeking overseas employment. A survey by the publication revealed a staggering 75 percent of researchers desire to leave the country. This trend foreshadows the most dramatic exodus of academics in a decade.

The restlessness among American scientists is further stoked by aggressive recruitment from China and Europe. Both are doubling down with lucrative financial incentives to lure top talent. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development notes that China's research funding growth has eclipsed that of the US. With abundant capital waiting in China, American scholars naturally feel compelled to move.

The eastward migration of US Nobel laureates is rapidly solidifying into a long-term trend. Hong Kong universities offer significantly better compensation for outstanding scholars compared to their American counterparts. This gives Hong Kong an absolute advantage in talent acquisition, and institutions must act quickly to inject impetus into their research programs before missing out.

Lai Ting-yiu