Voters show they prefer activist candidates, but winners of unofficial polls still face hurdles.
Beijing has hit out at those involved, though organisers deny charges of breaching national security law.

Beijing on Tuesday 14 issued its strongest warning over unofficial polls held last weekend to determine who among the city’s opposition will contest September’s Legislative Council elections. Organisers have denied the central government’s accusations that they had illegally manipulated the city’s polling system and breached the new national security law.
About 610,000 Hongkongers voted to choose opposition candidates for the Legco elections.
The result indicated a dramatic reshaping of Hong Kong’s political spectrum, with activists on the front lines of anti-government protests outperforming traditional pan-democrats.
Many uncertainties remain in the run-up to the coming Legco polls. Here are some of the issues thrown up by the outcome of the primary, and the latest confrontation between Beijing and Hong Kong’s opposition bloc.

 What was the purpose of the primary?

The unofficial polls were held to whittle down the opposition list of candidates from 52 to those with the best chance of winning in the Legco elections on September 6. Riding on its landslide victory in the district council elections last November, the opposition camp has set itself the goal of securing a majority in the 70-seat legislature for the first time.
Its plan, code-named “35-plus”, aims for a simple majority in Legco. That will be sufficient to
– veto the annual budget and, it hopes,
– force the government to accede to opposition demands including universal suffrage and an independent probe into police’s handling of the city’s year-long unrest.

 How have Beijing and the Hong Kong government reacted?

In a strongly-worded statement, the State Council’s Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office (HKMAO) lashed out at organisers of the unofficial polls, calling the primary “an unlawful manipulation of Hong Kong elections” and a “blatant challenge” to both the Basic Law, the city’s mini-constitution, as well as the new national security law.
It singled out law academic Benny Tai Yiu-ting, a co-organiser of the polls and co-founder of the Occupy protest movement which shut down parts of Hong Kong for 79 days in 2014, accusing him of being “a political agent of foreign forces”.

Earlier, Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor and Beijing’s liaison office in the city accused the opposition of trying to paralyse the government by vowing to veto the budget. They described it as a coordinated ploy to subvert state power.

 How have the organisers responded?

A defiant Tai rejected Beijing’s allegations as “nonsense, groundless and absurd” and said the primary was organised with only local resources. He also rejected the accusation of subversion, saying legislators had the constitutional power under the Basic Law to veto the budget and hold the government accountable.

But Beijing’s condemnation did have a chilling effect. A day after the HKMAO statement, former lawmaker Au Nok-hin, who co-hosted the primary, declared he was quitting the organising task force. He said he had no choice, to protect his safety and that of others.
On Wednesday 15, Democratic Party district councillor Andrew Chiu Ka-yin, convenor of the Power of Democracy which coordinated the primary, also withdrew from the task force, saying he had fulfilled his responsibilities.

 Did the primary breach the national security law?

It depends on who you ask.

– Pro-establishment lawmaker Priscilla Leung Mei-fun, a member of the Basic Law Committee, said the government should investigate whether the primary breached Article 22 of the new law.
The article states that anyone who organises, plans, commits or participates in acts that seriously interfere in, disrupt, or undermine the performance of duties and functions of the government by force or threat of force, or other unlawful means could be deemed to be subverting the state power.

– But Simon Young Ngai-man, associate dean of the University of Hong Kong’s law school, said it was hard to see how the primary amounted to subversion. To breach the law, he said, the acts in question had to also involve the use or threat of force or other unlawful means.

 What do the poll results show?

The outcome indicates that traditional pan-democratic parties have lost ground to localist challengers. About 57 per cent of voters supported localists, whereas traditional pan-democrats gained only 43 per cent of the vote, according to a Post analysis. The result was a reversal of the 2016 elections, when 65.5 per cent of the vote went to pan-democrats and localists managed only 34.5 per cent.
Most of the weekend’s winners played significant roles in the anti-government protests that began in June last year, including activist Joshua Wong Chi-fung, student leader-turned-district councillor Lester Shum and ex-journalist Gwyneth Ho Kwai-lam.

Ivan Choy Chi-keung, a political scientist at Chinese University, said the results revealed a significant shift in voter preference for a more confrontational opposition.
He said: “As the primary booted out candidates from small-scale traditional parties, such as the Labour Party, their loyal supporters have to rethink their choices and may vote strategically, favouring some localists.”

The 610,000-strong turnout represented about 13.8 per cent of registered voters and about 35 per cent of those who supported the opposition camp in last year’s district council elections.
Choy said the results were not a representative sample, as a significant number of those who voted in unofficial polls typically tended to endorse a more confrontational approach. Also, the heavy reliance on electronic voting meant that the choices of elderly voters, who might hold more moderate views, were under-represented, he added.

 Can those who lost still run for election?

Theoretically, yes. Candidates in the primary had to sign an agreement pledging to respect the results, but the organisers said those who lost remained free to run in the actual election without fear of coercion.
In Kowloon West constituency, for example, Democratic Party incumbent lawmaker Helena Wong Pik-wan, localist candidate Frankie Fung Tat-chun and barrister Lawrence Lau Wai-chung have already promised not to sign up for the September race following their defeat in the primary.

 What uncertainties lie ahead?

Candidates who won big last weekend face another obstacle ahead: possible disqualification by the government.
Over the past four years, about 10 candidates have been banned from contesting elections because of their political stance. Among them was activist Joshua Wong, who topped the primary race in Kowloon East constituency. Most of the hopefuls from the so-called “resistance bloc” – which favours more confrontational tactics against the authorities – have already selected backup candidates to step in if they are banned.

The opposition bloc has also yet to decide on whether to sign a declaration form, introduced by the government four years ago, pledging allegiance to Hong Kong.
Previously, those who refused to sign it still qualified to run. But Article 6 of the new national security law stipulates that those who stand for elections must “confirm in writing or take an oath” to uphold the Basic Law and swear allegiance to Hong Kong.