Hong Kong: Universal Suffrage Not Later Than 2017

Although a majority of public opinion supports universal suffrage of the SAR Chief Executive (CE) in 2012, the SAR government still insists on a “Not Later Than 2017” position in a recent consultation report (announced in Dec 12) on political reform. The present CE, Donald Tsang, claimed that he would get more support if it is “Not Later than 2017” than 2012.

How about the Legislative Council universal suffrage time table? The government report mentions very little about Legco's universal suffrage timetable but stresses that it has to be later than the CE. Which means the earliest day for the Legco universal suffrage will be 2020, 13 years later!

Some mainstream media started blackmailing the pan-democrats by saying that if they don’t agree on the time table for Legco election, they will ruin the 2017 CE universal suffrage.

Ah yeah from inmediahk.net quotes from the Ming pao editorial and criticizes the newspapers political stand. According to the editorial:

泛民陣營有必要在爭取『一步到位』和『分步走』之間抉擇。……如果泛民陣營的立場是非要同時立法會普選不可,否則連行政長官先行普選也不要,採取這種綑綁式的「零和抉擇」取態,則連2017 年普選行政長官的可能機會,這次也不可能實現。

The Pan-democrats has to choose between “once and for all” strategy and “step by step strategy”… If the pan-dem insists on having the legislative council and Chief Executive universal suffrage’s time table to be at the same pace or else they will oppose the CE universal suffrage proposal. Such tie together kind of “zero sum” attitude, will eventually ruin the chance for 2017 CE universal suffrage.

Ah yeah describes such blackmailing comment as “loyalty dance” for wining the central government and SAR government’s trust.


The paragraphs above were quoted from the editorial of Mingpao, the self-claimed “Credibility First” newspapers. With a few light sentences, it pushes the political responsibility from Donald Tsang to the pan-dem alliance. Its loyalty dance is incredible.

Hegelchong makes fun of the language game in the report and suggests a time frame of “Not Later than the End of the World” for getting more people support:


There are 18,000 citizen submissions for the consultation and 16,000 supported universal suffrage in 2012. How can Donald Tsang said that 2017 would have more chance for getting more support for a majority of people!… if the logic is so, why not saying that “Universal suffrage not later than the end of the world would have more chance for getting more support for a majority of people!

Winter wonders if s/he can eventually see the universal suffrage day come:

記得九七回歸,香港市民期待 2008 普選行政長官,十年轉眼即逝,民建聯早把黨綱修訂,否決 08 普選,正是今日的我打倒昨日的我。2008 普選無望,渴望普選的一群只好把盼望延續到 2012,不料 2012 普選夢再度落空,正是十年之後又十年,只怕到老還是一場空。甚麼他媽的「未能取得各界共識」、「循序漸進」,60% 民意支持還不算共識?香港人由八十年代起爭取民主選舉至今足足二十年,循甚麼序?漸甚麼進?

Remember in 1997, Hong Kong Citizens were all expecting universal suffrage in 2008. 10 years have been passed; DAB has changed their party line and rejected 2008 universal suffrage. They have denied their own promise. Now that the hope for 2008 has been shattered, we can only wish for 2012, and again we have our dream taken away, 10 years after 10 years. Will it be again a hopeless dream when I am old? The fxxking saying about “haven’t gotten the consensus from all sectors”, “step by step”. 60% public opinion is not consensus? Hong Kong people have been fighting for democracy since the 80s, it has been more than 20 years, isn’t that step by step?

Now the SAR government has announced the report, the pan-dem alliance has to give their responses. Those were the days spells out the dilemma the pan dem alliance is facing now:

若泛民今次政改再投否決票,泛民A說,他們就會中了煲呔陷阱,成了遲遲沒有普選幫兇… 特別是現實的香港人,他們眼見2012無望,必會轉投2017普選特首陣營,那時泛民又應如何自處?

Pan dem A said: If the pan dem turns down the reform proposal this time, they would step into Donald Tsang’s trap and becomes responsible for deferring the universal suffrage time schedule… especially the fact that Hong Kong people are very practical. Once they know that the hope for 2012 has been shattered, they would support 2017, where should pan-dem position themselves?

泛民B說,煲呔今次建議, 真的很「毒」:拋出一個2017普選特首的空泛建議,既沒內容、連參選門檻高低也不說,就要泛民決定支持與否,若泛民反對,罪在泛民,若中央明知主流民意支持2012雙普選,仍舊加以否決,甚至連2017是否普選特首,也不肯承諾,那是中央責任…

Pan dem B said, Donald Tsang’s suggestion is very wicked: the suggestion of 2017 universal suffrage is so empty, without any concrete description. It doesn’t even touch the nomination mechanism. And it asks for pan-dem’s support. If pan-dem opposes, they have to bare the sin; if the central government knowing that the majority is in support of 2012 still opposes the time table of 2017 universal suffrage of CE, the central government has to bare the responsibility…

Plastichk suggests the pan-dem to work out the details rather than the time table:


Detail is the main battlefield. Pan dem should deal with the empty words with substantial details, so that the meaning of true democracy will be revealed. Details, such as the nomination mechanism, the timetable for abolition of appointed legislative members. See how the government responds to these details before making any concrete agreement.


  • mahathir_fan

    All this call for universal suffrage is very nobel. My only question is still: why didn’t you guys push for universal suffrage and independence while you were still under the British government?

  • Charles Liu

    Maybe Ms. Chan can benefit from a little bit of historical perspective: when did the US achieve “universal sufferage”?

  • leo

    It is really strange to see ” pan-dem” claiming themselves to represent the majority of HK people’s opinion —that 2012 is a must for so called universal suffrage of CE or legco. Only 18000 out of 7 million people bother to submit some form of written material to express their support or opposition of universal suffrage. The recent opinion poll reflects great majority of HK people accept the resolution of the National People Representative Standing Committe about the 2017 CE election. That reflects the so called representative pan-dem are not truely representative at all.

  • remi

    Yes, we did not push for universal suffrage nor independence while under British governance, or, if there was such an effort, I stand corrected: We did not push hard enough. Yes, only 18K of us could still see the reason in calling for the Vote for each man. If there were more, forgive my ignorance, they did not show. Yes, year 2009 is half gone, and we are not any closer to universal suffrage than we were 144 months and 6 days ago. … Wow, I said three yes’s today, that’s like a zillion years ahead of the SAR government; they cannot say one yes for 12 years in a row!

Join 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.

Receive great stories from around the world directly in your inbox.

Sign up to receive the best of Global Voices!

Submitted addresses will be confirmed by email, and used only to keep you up to date about Global Voices and our mission. See our Privacy Policy for details.

Newsletter powered by Mailchimp (Privacy Policy and Terms).

* = required field
Email Frequency

No thanks, show me the site