Hong Kong: Pan Democrats’ Dark Day

The Pan democrats have lost a bitter battle in the recent district council election. Before the election, the pan-dem worried that they wouldn’t be able to keep all their seats and tried to explain the situation by predicting a low voting rate. The final result is worse than they have estimated: they has lost one third of their seats. Among the 294 candidates only 104 of them have won, losing 47 seats in total. Whereas the pro establishment party, Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB) has won 115 seats and the liberal party 15 seats.

The immediate comment from the mainstream critics is that the pan democrats are not performing well enough in their district service. However, many bloggers disagree.

Yinnest points out that most of the voters wouldn’t know who the district councilors are, not to mention their work:


After the match evaluation: the main reason for the lost in battle is not performing well in local service. Actually I don't know why they end up with this conclusion. How many people actually know their district councilors? not to mention what exactly they have done. District councilors with different political background do not show any differences in their district work. Well, maybe the scholars know all the district councilors and their performances in 18 districts. Or, like my family members’ impression: this year is the 10th year anniversary of reunification, the DAB must have done more than the democrats. Or the labeling effect, like the saying that the democrats have lost their charm in attracting the votes.

Kursk believes that Hong Kong is trapped in a political Matrix where the pro-establishment force can disgust their political position and live in different identities:


Some say that the pan democrats has neglected district service. However, many DAB councilors are not doing their service. Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood and Wanchai community coalition, which put stress on district work, have also lost.



The main reason is the trend.

All over the world, which ruling party would lose its power when the economy is blooming? We don't have any negative equity in nowadays Hong Kong. No more idiot chief executive, even Regina Ip has to show her remorse to the past. The native communists have shut up (the incident concerning mincing pigs with tanks has been wipe off). The central power is a grand nation. Our native communists’ posters are no longer old fashioned and they have endless resources to provide service. They can employ party workers to play the role of opposition party for 10 more years. This is called trend.

只可惜,人家的國家可以有政黨輪替,有上有落,可是我們的香港,只是個Matrix。現在社會大治,形勢比人強,普選之路只有愈來愈遠。連這個Matrix也未攬定,我們做什麼,面對的也是有無限分身,無限復活的Agent Smith。我們要怎樣打?Leo和Oracle在哪裡?那肯定不是陳太,不要發夢了。

Unfortunately, other countries’ ruling party will rotate, however, in Hong Kong, it is just a Matrix. Now the society is rich, they got the upper hand in the trend; the path to universal suffrage will become longer and longer. We don't know what to do in the Matrix and in front of us is Agent Smith who can live again and again with unlimited identity. How are we going to fight the fight? Where is the Leo and the Oracle? It is definitely not Anson Chan, don't dream anymore.

Henry porter analyses the election result of two districts and tries to differentiate “district service” with “district mobilization” work.


From the two cases above, the so-called “district work” cannot be generalized as “serving the people”. What we encountered in this district council election battle, is a battle of mobilization: no matter how hard the councilors serve the community, if they don't have local resident organizations support, their service won't have much effect. On the other hand, when the political party keeps giving resources to these local organizations, their seats are safe and new people can also enter the scene.


Some said that “people will vote for you have managed the district service”. Such saying has missed the differentiation between “district service” and “district mobilization”. Voting can of course be driven by thankful feelings, but it is more effective with “organization motivation” and disciplined mobilization.

Those were the days hopes that the pan dem will be sincere in their evaluation this time:


I have never doubted about pan democrats’ faith, including Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood's concern for the grassroots. I hope they can get a better reward. However, I really doubt if they can put aside political interest and reflect on their lost battle. Have they carried out the evaluation plan in 1999 (after the lost)? Among the pan dem councilors, how many of them are committed to the evaluation and could carry out their promises in reform.

Diumanpark compares the situation of the pan democrats with the dotcom bubble and points out that the pan democrats failed to transform democracy into more substantial practice and enterprise before the bubble burst.


In 2003, because of Tung Chee-hua's failure and the legislation of article 23, “Democracy”, similar to the dotcom, became a hot concept. The so-called July 1 effect is in fact dotcom effect: when a candidate claims to be a democrat, his/her value grows. That's why the pan-democrats won in the last district council election. Now, everyone knows that their success was just bubbles created by the time. “Democracy” is devaluating.



If the pan-democrats could turn the grand “accumulation of democracy” in 2003 into substantial enterprise, even though the bubble burst out, they wouldn't have lost the battle like this. It could transform into an enterprise or a blue chip in the stock market. However, did the pan-democrats try to do that?

I support democracy and universal suffrage, but at the same time feel great disappointment with the democrats. The reason why I choose democrats is like a choice between chicken bone and chicken shit, you have to choose chicken bone.



When Tung Chee-hua stepped down, the circumstance for the pan democrats has shifted. Why? They thought that they had contributed to the miracle in July 1 2003 and would have a smooth path in the future. However, it was a miracle; it only became possible because of the six years great work of the notorious Tung Chee hua.

Don't be drowned in delirium. Your counterpart would use all means to win the game. They have rich experience in power struggle. The enemy is in the dark, if we are still drowned in delirium, regret will follow.


This year the voting rate is 38%, when compared with 2003's 44%, it dropped for 6%. However, the voting population is increased by 60,000. Which means the registration of voters have increased. Why do all these votes come from? Don't you see the pro China clan has been helping the resident to get registered? What about the pan democrats?

Wongonyin bids the pan-dem party chairs to resign:

泛民大敗,各主席應辭職 !(梁耀忠除外)
pls, 快,馬上

Pan dem has defeated, their leaders should resign! (except Leung Yiu Chung)
please, quick, now.
this is for the sake of building up a responsible culture
and the last contribution for democracy among this group of lost leaders.

Start the conversation

Authors, please log in »


  • All comments are reviewed by a moderator. Do not submit your comment more than once or it may be identified as spam.
  • Please treat others with respect. Comments containing hate speech, obscenity, and personal attacks will not be approved.