“七二一”元朗黑夜：用记忆保存公义的火种

Remembering the 7/21 Yuen Long Attack: Preserving the Spark of Justice Through Memory

元朗港铁站。图片来源：Shutterstock

作者：浮蝉

By Fu Chan

The English translation follows below.

六年前此时，也就是2019年7月21日，香港因《逃犯条例》修订而引发的大规模社会运动——“反送中”运动已进入第二个月。当天夜里以及次日凌晨，有数百身着白衣的人持武器在港铁元朗站内和周围，袭击普通市民。这充满暴力与血腥的一夜，让很多香港人猛然惊醒：这是要进入历史的一天——是日过后，自由的香港已危在旦夕。

柳俊江就是这样一位忧心忡忡的香港人。他也是“七二一”当晚元朗袭击事件的受害者之一。身为曾经的记者，柳俊江的著作《元朗黑夜——我的记忆和众人的记忆》（以下简称《元朗黑夜》），迄今为止，是为数不多的对“七二一”恐怖记忆较为全面的文字梳理。

1981年出生的柳俊江，年轻时即投身香港新闻界，被人称为“柳爷”。他与2002年至2010年期间，担任TVB（香港电视广播有限公司）记者和主播，曾驻北京和广州，采访报道过中国内地多起重大新闻。汶川大地震后，柳俊江和香港的记者同事们徒步两天，成为第一批进入震中映秀镇的境外记者。“七二一”遇袭后，柳俊江重拾记者的老本行，走访了四十多位亲历者，记录“众人的记忆”，同时为读者讲述自己的遭遇，即“我的记忆”，写成这部历史的见证——《元朗黑夜》。

记者本行：还原“七二一”元朗袭击的来龙去脉

《元朗黑夜》中记录的“七二一”元朗袭击的事实，很多已被事发过程中人们的手机镜头记录。柳俊江本人作为亲历者，加上对多名目击者的核实考证，则进一步还原了“七二一”的来龙去脉。

2019年7月21日，当数十万香港市民在港岛、九龙等多地进行和平的“反送中”游行时，几百名被指称有三合会背景、手持木棍、藤条等武器的“白衣人”（因为统一穿白色衬衫而得名），就已开始聚集在香港新界西北的元朗区。

夜幕降临后，这些白衣人两度冲入元朗港铁站攻击市民，无差别袭击一班列车上的乘客，并在元朗站周边毁坏车辆、打伤市民，共导致至少近50名香港市民受伤被送往医院。尽管已经临近午夜，袭击的消息很快传遍网络，尤其是列车内血迹斑斑，哭声、喊声此起彼伏的影像，成为了香港人的集体恐怖记忆。

然而，人们很快意识到，这不仅仅是一场黑社会单方面的暴力行动。白衣人从白天开始持械聚集到夜晚殴打市民，经过了大半天的时间。当晚，香港警方也接到了上万个报警电话。但从白衣人第一次冲击元朗港铁站到市民遇袭受伤，警察用了39分钟才到达现场，并“赶巧”与离场的白衣人擦肩而过。到了现场，警察只是与愤慨的市民对峙，看着带有血迹的地铁站台，并没有保留现场，也没有立即取证，不过多久就离开了。

午夜后，第二个“无警时分”到来，白衣人在元朗站周围袭击市民，并再次冲击港铁站，打伤多个市民。当晚，香港警察没有拘捕任何一名白衣人。

香港警方一系列极为异常的举动，让许多香港人怀疑“七二一”的暴力袭击是“警黑勾结”的结果——即香港黑社会势力受到警方、港府甚至中央政府的指使或默许，袭击香港市民，意在让香港人因恐惧自身的安危而不敢继续上街游行。（当晚有市民报警时，一个元朗警署的接线员回答：“惊，你就唔好出街！”——“怕，你就不要上街！”）

因为“七二一”第一时间的影像资料丰富，媒体报道的跟进也较为及时，所以针对“七二一”后续的采访、报道和调查，包括《元朗黑夜》本身，其实都在试图回答一个问题：“警黑勾结”，是否为真？

2021年7月21日，本文作者摄于港岛。

“警黑勾结”的疑问

《元朗黑夜》中“众人的记忆”，为回答人们关于“警黑勾结”的疑问，提供了许多有力的细节。这些细节，大部分与事发现场的影像资料和其他记者的调查结果吻合，也有小部分是没有影像资料记录的目击证词。

柳俊江的调查证实，白衣人第一次冲击车站时，车站有两名警员值班，但他们袖手旁观，没有做出任何化解冲突的举动，也没有及时叫来更多警力帮助维持秩序。还有证据显示，警方在案发时关闭元朗周边的警署，让市民无法亲自报警。

另外，有目击者称，警察第一次到达现场时，虽然看到了离开站台的大量白衣人，但只是做出让白衣人尽快离开的手势，并没有向白衣人询问情况，也没有试图拘捕白衣人。

《元朗黑夜》中的一位目击者，称在元朗车站外没有媒体和镜头记录的时候，竟然听到警察对几个白衣人说：“你们没事就好！”另外也有目击者称看到几位警员撞见持械的白衣人，其中一位年轻的警员反应激烈，本能地做出自卫的动作，却被身边的警员阻止。

随着更多的记者赶到现场，媒体也捕捉到了两名警员与两名白衣人平静交谈的画面。后来警察为白衣人的车辆让道，让几百名白衣人撤离，也被媒体拍摄记录下来。

事后，香港官方对“七二一”的解释澄清中，试图反驳“警黑勾结”的指控，但在逻辑和事实层面都无法说通。面对警察迟迟不到场的指责，官方最初的解释是，当天因为游行，大批警力被调度到其它区域；而当被问及为何警察对报警没有及时反应，官方的回应则是，大量的报警电话，被当作滥用报警的骚扰电话处理。

而这些回应均无法解释，为何车站值班警察看到大批持械叫嚣的白衣人却无动于衷，也无法解释为什么警署面对市民求助却选择关闭，更无法解释在暴力发生后，警察对待市民态度恶劣，既没有调查现场，也没有拘捕任何白衣人。

官方对记者调查的打压也接踵而来。前香港电台记者蔡玉玲在事发近一年后的铿锵集节目“721 谁主真相”中，调查白衣人的车辆，试图确定白衣人的身份。节目播出后，蔡玉玲却遭到警方控告。警方指控蔡玉玲向政府提交查车牌的申请时，做出了虚假陈述，因为在填写查车牌的用途时，蔡玉玲选择了“其它有关交通及运输的事宜”。蔡玉玲初审罪成，被判罚款，二审上诉被驳回，直至上诉到终审法院，蔡玉玲才免于罪责。虽然蔡玉玲最终胜诉，但是官方无端地检控记者，难免被公众认为是对调查“七二一”真相的阻挠。

此外，在起诉几十名白衣人的同时，香港警方也起诉了多名与白衣人对峙的香港市民。这其中包括当时的民主派立法会议员林卓廷。林卓廷“七二一”当晚得知白衣人持械聚集，赶到元朗站试图制止冲突，结果反被控暴动罪成。随着另外几名无辜市民被定罪，香港官方对“七二一”事实认定的态度已很清楚，那就是白衣人与市民（黑衣人）两方打架斗殴，势均力敌，双方均有责任。

“七二一”当晚，警察未拘捕任何持械的白衣人。

挑战被官方重塑的事实

无论香港官方给出怎样的结论，读过《元朗黑夜》，人们可以知道，“七二一”是一边倒的袭击事件，官方对事实的重塑并不能成立。而一些香港市民在危急时刻面对白衣人的反应，绝不是与白衣人对等的“暴动”，而是体现了香港人互帮互助、热爱正义的精神。

在柳俊江的记录中，得知白衣人持械聚集后，一些香港市民的第一反应，并不是逃离，而是上前支援受到威胁的市民。先是有市民在元朗站为当天参与过游行的人们提供不同颜色的衬衫——由于游行的人们大多穿黑衫，容易成为黑社会白衣人的目标，换上别的颜色，可以降低被袭击的风险。再后来，有包括林卓廷在内的更多市民，走到车站付费区，与付费区外的白衣人对峙。这种对峙显然是不对等的：白衣人手持木棍、藤条等武器，而市民们最多只有雨伞防身。

第一个赶到现场的记者，是后来被港人称作“立场姐姐”的何桂蓝。原本路过元朗站去往港岛的何桂蓝，听说白衣人聚集在元朗，便下车打开了《立场新闻》的Facebook直播。当何桂蓝举着手机走出元朗站付费区时，一个白衣男子突然对她进行袭击。整个袭击的过程，被全程直播。当时已近午夜，一些香港市民通过网络看到元朗站的暴力场面，决定前往元朗支援，但他们中的一些人，后来却也被警方检控暴动。

当晚最具戏剧性的介入，莫过于《元朗黑夜》的作者、“七二一”伤势最重的受害者之一——柳俊江。柳俊江在书中写到，自己那天本来决心整天陪家人，不关注新闻，临睡前不看手机，做一天的“港猪”（指不关心政治的香港人）。不过，到了晚上快睡觉的时候，因为妻子看到元朗的新闻和暴力场面并告诉了他，柳俊江当即决定开半个多小时车，从大埔到元朗帮助疏散被困的市民，载他们回家。

柳俊江到达元朗站后，先是看到警察与市民对峙，然后开车送四名市民回家。当他再次回到元朗站时，正好赶上白衣人掀开本已关闭的闸门，杀入站内。柳俊江本可以逃跑，但在一个市民被白衣人追上后，他本能地转身去救助那位被打的市民。结果，柳俊江遭到多名白衣人持械围殴，头破血流，遍体鳞伤。他受伤的照片，顿时在网上疯传，亲友短时间发来几百条信息。

事后，为了写这本书，柳俊江顶着心理创伤，回到事发现场，走访亲历者、目击者，试图为后人将真相还原。他在书的后记中写道：

“书写《元朗黑夜——我的记忆和众人的记忆》，是一个很痛苦的过程。许多个深夜，我重复又重复地，审视721当晚的直播和新闻片段，我开始心悸、手震、呼吸不畅。而为了还原真相，为了达到我心中的理念，我匍匐前进，克服种种心魔，克服了创伤压力后遗症。在痛苦中锻炼出更强大的心志，是编写这本书的意外收获。”

柳俊江

保留黑暗时代真正勇敢的香港精神

作为一名有长期在中国内地报道重大新闻经验的记者，柳俊江在“七二一”之夜的经历让他很快意识到：颠倒黑白，甚至“原告变被告”的事情很有可能发生。所以他没有选择报警，甚至当晚满身是伤的他原本已经上了公立医院的救护车，却决定下车，自行开车到私立医院疗伤。后来，警方也始终没有来找他调查案情。

柳俊江虽然是受害者，但在“七二一”后，不敢声张，并且要为自己和家人的安全倍加担忧。他的遭遇，足以反映官方对“七二一”的处理态度。这也说明，为什么元朗“七二一”袭击对香港警民互信造成了不可逆的毁灭性打击。这也是为什么香港的抗争运动，在“七二一”之后越发暴力的原因之一——当警方放弃了保护市民的基本职责，信任就会转为敌意。

“七二一”后，这种敌意明显增强，集中表现在抗争者中“勇武派”的壮大。虽然外界对“勇武派”的暴力行为有着负面的评判，认为“勇武派”示威者突破了文明社会的某种底线，但是大部分香港的“和理非”支持者却选择了“和勇不分”、“不割席”。因为很多经历过香港2019年抗争的人们心里都清楚，这可能是一个没有选择的选择。

在很多香港人看来，最先突破底线的，是中国政府拒绝实行真普选，是香港政府忽略民意一意孤行，是香港警察纵容黑社会袭击市民。“勇武派”采取暴力抗争的行动，有法律和国家的暴力机器可以制衡。而政权屡屡突破底线，带来的就是如今香港灾难性的衰败。

“七二一”，也有人将其比作香港的“六四”。从伤亡人数和影响范围来看，两个事件大概不可比（“七二一”并未导致任何人死亡）。但从国家政权撕毁社会契约的角度来看，“七二一”与“六四”有类似之处。

“六四”之所以被禁止讨论，正是因为一旦人们知道共产党曾经对手无寸铁、和平示威的中国年轻人大开杀戒，那么共产党“伟光正”的形象就会崩塌，其政权合法性就会瓦解，民众对其的基本信任也会消失。

同样的，当香港人目睹了“七二一”后正义的缺失，他们对香港警方、香港政府以及中央政府的信任也一去不复返。正如“六四”标志着中国进入一个共产意识形态破产的高压时代，“七二一”标志着香港的官民矛盾不可能以和平的方式收尾。

尽管没有了公义，港人尚有记忆。有记忆，就保存了伸张正义的可能性。柳俊江在书的前言中写道：“遗忘，不一定是自然现象。因为时间，记忆消退。因为创伤，选择忘记。因为谎言，焦点模糊。因为利益，竄改历史。”

写下这本书，意味着柳俊江选择了记忆。在回忆完自己的遭遇后，他总结道：“恶人仍肆虐，善良的人们共同承受香港的创伤，纵然面对恐惧，在未知的风暴中打转，但我们依然坚持，这才是真正的勇敢，新的香港精神。”

只不过，柳俊江个人的境况在“七二一”遇袭后急转直下。在《元朗黑夜》于2020年7月出版后不久，他便与妻子离婚。2024年1月4日，柳俊江在家中自尽。

作为一个善良的香港人，一个专业的记者，柳俊江承受了、面对了远多于常人的创伤与恐惧，他也用《元朗黑夜》的记录，诠释了在黑暗时代，那种依然坚持、真正勇敢的香港精神。

本期推荐档案：

柳俊江：《元朗黑夜——我的记忆和众人的记忆》

（中国民间档案馆已经备份收藏香港电台RTHK多个已停播的议政栏目，欢迎浏览观看：）

（提示：以下影像内容包含“七二一”暴力场景，不适合所有人观看。）

香港电台《头条新闻》2019年7月26日《讲人话》

香港电台《铿锵集》2019年7月29日《元朗黑夜》

香港电台《铿锵集》2020年7月13日《721 谁主真相》

香港电台《视点31》2019年7月23日《元朗黑夜后遗之惶恐式戒严；讨论元朗暴力事件；暴力恐惧转化动力

---

The Yuen Long MTR Station. Image source: Shutterstock.

Remembering the 7/21 Yuen Long Attack: Preserving the Spark of Justice Through Memory

By Fu Chan

Six years ago, on July 21, 2019, protests entered a second month against the Hong Kong government’s efforts to introduce a law making it easier to extradite people to Mainland China. That night and into the early hours of the next morning, gangs of men clad in white entered the Yuen Long MTR station in the city’s northwest and beat up civilians. The violent attacks were a stark awakening for many Hong Kongers, making it clear that the protests would no longer proceed peacefully—a turning point that imperiled Hong Kong’s existence as a free city.

Lau Chun Kong was among those Hong Kongers deeply concerned about the extradition bill and a victim of the 7/21 Yuen Long attack. Born in 1981, Lau entered Hong Kong’s news industry at a young age. From 2002 to 2010, he worked as a reporter and anchor for Hong Kong’s TVB (Television Broadcasts Limited) network, with postings in Beijing and Guangzhou, covering numerous major news stories in Mainland China. Following the Wenchuan earthquake in 2008, Lau and his Hong Kong journalist colleagues trekked for two days, becoming the first non-Mainland journalists to reach Yingxiu Town, the earthquake’s epicenter. Lau later left journalism to take up public relations duties with the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Kowloon Motor Bus.

But after being attacked on 7/21, Lau returned to his journalistic roots. He interviewed over forty witnesses and shared his own experiences, creating a historical testament: Dark Night in Yuen Long: My Memories and the Crowd’s Memories.

A Journalist’s Calling: Reconstructing the 7/21 Yuen Long Attack

Many of the facts about the 7/21 Yuen Long attack documented in Dark Night in Yuen Long were captured by cell phone cameras during the incident. Lau added to the investigation by verifying other eyewitness accounts.

On July 21, 2019, as hundreds of thousands of Hong Kong citizens participated in peaceful marches across the city, several hundred white-clad individuals, allegedly with triad connections and armed with wooden sticks, rattan canes, and other weapons, had already begun gathering in Yuen Long District in northwestern Hong Kong.

As night fell, these white-clad men twice stormed the Yuen Long MTR station, attacking citizens and indiscriminately assaulting passengers on a train. They also damaged vehicles and injured residents around Yuen Long station, resulting in nearly 50 people being injured and hospitalized. Despite the late hour, news of the attack spread rapidly online. Images of bloodstained train compartments and the sounds of crying and shouting created a collective, terrifying memory for Hong Kongers.

However, people quickly realized this was not merely a unilateral act of gang violence. The perpetrators had been gathering with weapons since daylight and assaulting citizens into the night, a period spanning over half a day. That evening, Hong Kong police received tens of thousands of emergency calls.

Yet, from the gangs’ initial assault on Yuen Long MTR station to the time citizens were attacked and injured, it took the police 39 minutes to arrive at the scene. They then passed by the departing perpetrators, who were leaving the station. Once present, the police confronted the indignant citizens and observed the bloodstained train platform without preserving the scene or immediately collecting evidence, leaving shortly thereafter.

For a period of time after midnight, the police disappeared again. During this time, the gangs continued to attack citizens around Yuen Long station and again stormed the MTR station, injuring more people. That night, the Hong Kong police did not arrest any perpetrators.

The Hong Kong police’s series of highly unusual actions led many Hong Kongers to suspect that the 7/21 violent attack was the result of what some called “police-triad collusion.” This implied that Hong Kong triad forces were either instructed or tacitly allowed by the police, the Hong Kong government, or even China’s central government to attack Hong Kong citizens. The intent was to instill fear for personal safety among Hong Kongers, thereby discouraging further street protests. (Indeed, when a citizen called the police that night, a Yuen Long police station dispatcher reportedly replied: “Scared? Then don’t you go out to the streets!”)

Given the abundance of real-time visual evidence from 7/21 and timely media follow-ups, the goal of subsequent reports and investigations, including Dark Night in Yuen Long, is to answer one critical question: was the “police-triad collusion” real?

Graffiti on Hong Kong Island, seen on July 21, 2021, stating: “Do not forget 7/21. Police-triad collusion.” Photo by the author.

The Question of Police-Triad Collusion

The eyewitness accounts documented in Dark Night in Yuen Long provide many compelling details that might shed light on police-triad collusion. Most of these details align with visual evidence from the scene and other journalists’ investigative findings, with a smaller portion comprising eyewitness testimonies of events not captured on video.

Lau’s investigation confirmed that when the white-clad men first stormed the station, two police officers were on duty at the station but made no effort to de-escalate the conflict or promptly call for backup to maintain order. Evidence also suggests that the police closed police stations around Yuen Long during the incident, preventing citizens from reporting crimes in person.

Additionally, eyewitnesses claimed that when the police first arrived at the scene, despite seeing a large number of white-clad men leaving the platform, they merely gestured for them to leave quickly, without questioning them or attempting to make arrests.

One eyewitness in Dark Night in Yuen Long even reported hearing a police officer say to a few alleged perpetrators, outside the view of the media or cameras, “As long as you are okay, we are glad!” Other eyewitnesses also claimed to have seen several police officers encounter white-clad men armed with weapons. One young officer reportedly reacted strongly, instinctively making defensive moves, only to be calmed by his colleagues.

As more journalists arrived, the media captured images of two police officers calmly conversing with two alleged perpetrators. Later, the media also filmed the police clearing a path for the white-clad men’s vehicles, allowing several hundred of them to leave.

Afterward, the Hong Kong authorities attempted to rebut the accusations of “police-triad collusion” in their explanations and clarifications. However, their arguments were logically and factually untenable. Facing accusations of police delay, the initial official explanation was that a large number of police forces had been deployed to other areas due to protests that day. When asked why the police did not respond promptly to emergency calls, the official response was that numerous calls were treated as harassment calls abusing the emergency system.

However, none of these responses could explain why police officers on duty at the station remained indifferent when they saw a large group of armed men. They also failed to explain why police stations chose to close when citizens sought help, or, more crucially, why, after the violence occurred, the police only confronted the people at the scene, without preserving the crime scene or arresting anyone.

Official suppression of journalistic investigations soon followed. Former RTHK reporter Choy Yuk-ling was prosecuted by the police almost a year after the incident for her program “7/21, Who Holds the Truth?” in which she investigated the vehicles used by the perpetrators. After the program aired, the police accused Choy of making false statements when investigating vehicle registration details, as she had selected the option of “other” as the purpose for checking the license plates. Choy was convicted and fined at trial, and her initial appeal was rejected. It was not until she appealed to Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal that she was finally cleared of all charges. Even though Choy ultimately prevailed, the authorities’ prosecution of a journalist was inevitably perceived by the public as an obstruction to uncovering the truth of 7/21.

Furthermore, while prosecuting dozens of white-clad men, the Hong Kong police also charged several Hong Kong citizens who had confronted them. This included then-democratic legislative councilor Lam Cheuk-ting, who, upon learning of the armed gathering on the night of 7/21, rushed to Yuen Long Station to try and stop the conflict, only to be charged and convicted of rioting. With other innocent citizens also being convicted, the Hong Kong authorities’ version of events regarding 7/21 became clear: they asserted that the “white-clad individuals” and “black-clad individuals” (the citizens) were equally involved in a brawl, with both sides bearing responsibility.

On the night of 7/21, the Hong Kong police did not arrest a single weapon-wielding white-clad man.

Challenging the Reshaped Facts

Regardless of the conclusions presented by the Hong Kong authorities, Dark Night in Yuen Long clarifies that 7/21 was a one-sided attack, and the official reshaping of facts is untenable. Moreover, the reactions of some Hong Kong citizens in moments of crisis by no means constituted rioting, but rather a demonstration of the Hong Kong spirit of mutual aid and a love for justice.

Lau’s account reveals that upon learning of the armed gathering, some Hong Kong citizens’ initial reaction was not to flee, but to step forward and assist those under threat. First, citizens at Yuen Long Station offered different colored shirts to those who had participated in the day’s protests. Since most protesters wore black shirts, making them easy targets for the attackers, changing into other colors could reduce the risk of attack. Later, more citizens, including Lam Cheuk-ting, entered the station’s paid area to confront the white-clad men, who gathered outside the paid area. This confrontation was clearly unequal: the attackers wielded weapons like wooden sticks and rattan canes, while citizens at most had umbrellas for self-defense.

The first reporter to arrive at the scene was Gwyneth Ho, later affectionately known by Hong Kongers as “Big Sister of Stand News.” Ho, who was merely passing through Yuen Long Station en route to Hong Kong Island, heard about the gathering of weapon-wielding men in Yuen Long. She immediately disembarked and began a Facebook livestream for Stand News. As Ho walked out of the Yuen Long Station paid area with her phone, a white-clad man suddenly attacked her, and the entire assault was broadcast live. It was already late at night, but some Hong Kong citizens who witnessed the violence at Yuen Long Station online decided to travel there to offer support. However, some of them were later also prosecuted by the police for rioting.

The most dramatic intervention that night came from Lau Chun Kong himself. Lau wrote in his book that he had initially resolved to spend the entire day with his family, ignoring the news and putting away his phone before bed, aiming to be a “Hong Kong pig” (referring to Hong Kongers unconcerned with politics) for a day. However, as bedtime approached, his wife saw the news and violent scenes from Yuen Long and told him about them. Lau immediately decided to drive over half an hour, from Tai Po to Yuen Long, to help evacuate citizens from the station and drive them home.

Upon arriving at Yuen Long station, Lau first observed police confronting citizens, and then drove four people home. When he returned to Yuen Long station, he arrived just as dozens of white-clad men lifted open the already closed gates and stormed into the station. Lau could have fled, but when a citizen was caught by the attackers, he instinctively turned back to help the assaulted individual. As a result, Lau was surrounded and severely beaten by multiple white-clad attackers wielding weapons, leaving him with a bloodied head and extensive injuries all over his body. Photos of his bloody injuries quickly went viral online, and Lau received hundreds of messages from friends and family in a short time.

Afterward, to write this book, Lau bravely returned to the scene of the incident despite his psychological trauma, interviewing firsthand witnesses and eyewitnesses in an effort to restore the truth for future generations. He wrote in the book’s afterword:

“Writing Dark Night in Yuen Long: My Memories and the Crowd’s Memories was an incredibly painful process. Many a late night, I reviewed the live broadcasts and news footage from the night of 7/21, again and again. I began to experience heart palpitations, trembling hands, and shortness of breath. Yet, to restore the truth and achieve my ideals, I crawled forward, overcoming various inner demons and post-traumatic stress disorder. Developing a stronger will through this suffering was an unexpected gain from writing this book.”

Lau Chun Kong

Preserving the Courageous Hong Kong Spirit in Dark Times

As a journalist with extensive experience reporting major news in Mainland China, Lau’s experience on the night of 7/21 quickly made him realize that facts could be inverted and that it was entirely possible for the accuser to become the accused. Consequently, he chose not to report the incident to the police. Despite being seriously injured and having already boarded a public hospital ambulance that night, he decided to disembark and drive himself to a private hospital for treatment. Later, the police never contacted him directly to investigate the case.

Lau, despite being a victim, had to constantly worry about his and his family’s safety. His experience reflects the authorities’ attitude toward 7/21. This also explains why the 7/21 Yuen Long attack caused such irreversible and devastating damage to the mutual trust between the Hong Kong police and the public. It is also one of the reasons why Hong Kong’s protest movement became increasingly violent after 7/21—when the police abandoned their fundamental duty to protect citizens, trust inevitably transformed into hostility.

After 7/21, this hostility visibly intensified, prominently manifested in the growth of “the valiants” among protesters. While external observers may negatively judge the valiants’ violent actions, believing they crossed a line, most pro-democracy supporters in Hong Kong chose to stand in solidarity with them. This is because many who experienced Hong Kong’s 2019 protests understood that this might have been a choice born of no other options.

In the view of many Hong Kongers, the first to cross the line was the Chinese government’s refusal to implement genuine universal suffrage, followed by the Hong Kong government’s obstinate disregard for public opinion throughout the anti-extradition protests, and then the Hong Kong police’s complicity in gang attacks on citizens. While the valiants’ violent resistance could be restrained by the law and the state’s machinery of violence, the regime’s repeated transgression of boundaries has led to Hong Kong’s current irreversible decline.

7/21 has also been likened by some to Hong Kong’s June Fourth. In terms of casualties and scope of impact, the two events are likely incomparable (fortunately, no one died in the 7/21 attacks). However, from the perspective of state power abrogating a social contract, the two events share similarities.

The reason June Fourth is prohibited from discussion in China is precisely because once the Chinese people learn that the Communist Party once brutally suppressed unarmed, peaceful protests by Chinese youth, the Communist Party’s “great, glorious, and correct” image would crumble, its legitimacy would dissolve, and public trust in it would vanish.

Similarly, when Hong Kongers witnessed the blatant absence of justice after 7/21, their trust in the Hong Kong police, the Hong Kong government, and China’s central government was irrevocably lost. Just as June Fourth signaled China’s entry into an era of repression with bankrupt communist ideology, 7/21 indicated that the conflict between the Hong Kong government and its people could not be resolved peacefully.

Despite the lack of justice, Hong Kongers still possess their memories. And with memory, the possibility of justice is preserved. Lau wrote in the book’s preface: “Forgetting is not necessarily a natural phenomenon. With time, memory fades. With trauma, we choose to forget. With lies, our focus blurs. With self-interest, history is manipulated.”

With the writing of this book, Lau chose to remember. After recounting his own experiences, he concluded: “The evil culprits continue to run rampant, and good people collectively bear Hong Kong’s trauma. Though we face fear and are caught in an unknown storm, we persevere. This is true courage, the new Hong Kong spirit.”

However, Lau’s personal circumstances sharply deteriorated after the 7/21 attacks. Shortly after Dark Night in Yuen Long was published in July 2020, he and his wife divorced. On January 4, 2024, Lau took his own life.

As a dedicated Hong Konger and a journalist at heart, Lau endured and confronted far more trauma and fear than most. Through his record in Dark Night in Yuen Long, he embodied the truly courageous Hong Kong spirit that continues to persist in dark times.

Recommended archives:

Lau Chun Kong: Dark Night in Yuen Long—My Memories and the Crowd’s Memories

(The China Unofficial Archives has preserved and collected hundreds of episodes from several programs from Hong Kong’s public broadcaster RTHK, some of which have since ceased broadcasting. We invite you to browse and watch them:)

(Note: The following videos contain violent scenes from 7/21 and may not be suitable for all viewers.)

RTHK Headliner, July 26, 2019, “Please Speak Like a Human”

RTHK Hong Kong Connection, July 29, 2019, “Dark Night in Yuen Long” (English subtitles)

RTHK Hong Kong Connection, July 13, 2020, “7/21, Who Holds the Truth?”

RTHK Viewpoint 31, July 23, 2019, “Aftermath of Dark Night in Yuen Long: Fear-Induced Curfew; Discussion on the Violence in Yuen Long; Fear of Violence Transforms into Motivation”