• Wed
  • Sep 3, 2014
  • Updated: 4:10pm
Occupy Central
NewsHong Kong

Alliance for True Democracy proposal wins Occupy Central poll as nearly 800,000 Hongkongers vote

Number taking part surges to almost 800,000, with 88pc saying Legco should veto any plan that fails to meet international standards

PUBLISHED : Sunday, 29 June, 2014, 10:36pm
UPDATED : Monday, 30 June, 2014, 3:13pm


  • Yes: 19%
  • No: 81%
30 Jun 2014
  • Yes
  • No
Total number of votes recorded: 500

A proposal tabled by the Alliance for True Democracy, a group comprising 26 of the 27 pan-democratic lawmakers, won the unofficial "referendum" on Hong Kong's electoral reform that ended last night.

It secured 331,427 votes, or 42.1 per cent of the 787,767 valid ballots cast during the 10-day exercise, which was organised by the Occupy Central movement.

A joint blueprint put forward by Scholarism and the Federation of Students came second with 302,567 votes (38.4 per cent), followed by a People Power's proposal, which clinched 81,588 votes (10.4 per cent).

Students plan overnight Occupy Central sit-in 'rehearsal' after July 1 march

White paper 'was a failure of communication with Hong Kong'

All three call for the public to be allowed to nominate candidates for the 2017 chief executive election, an idea repeatedly dismissed by Beijing as inconsistent with the Basic Law.

However, the Alliance’s “three track” proposal would allow the public, the nominating committee, as well as political parties, to put forward candidates.

Under their plan, candidates can be nominated by 35,000 registered voters or by a party which secured at least five per cent of the vote in the last Legco election. It did not specify on the formation of the nominating committee, only stating that it should be “as democratic as it can be”.

The two other proposals would only allow the public and a nominating committee to put forward candidates.

In addition to the question of electoral reform, about 88 per cent of voters agreed that the Legislative Council should veto any reform proposal put forward by the government if it failed to meet international standards, compared with 7.5 per cent who disagreed.

Benny Tai Yiu-ting, a co-organiser of Occupy Central, said: "Today should go down in the history of Hong Kong's constitutional development as the referendum was the largest scale of expression of public opinion in the city's history."

He said they would submit the results to Chief Secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor.

A total of 798,957 people had voted since the exercise began on June 20. Discounting 11,190 repeat votes caused by people casting ballots both online and at polling stations, the number of valid votes cast was 787,767.

More than 6,000 votes cast at polling stations had still to be counted.

Watch: Hong Kong residents vote on the last day of unofficial referendum

Alliance convenor Professor Joseph Cheng Yu-shek said: "In the last 10 days, Hong Kong people have spoken clearly that they want universal suffrage. They agree that public nomination is the most effective mechanism [to fight] against screening."

Tai said the campaign would push for the winning proposal, and if the government refused to accept it and tabled a different proposal, the civil disobedience movement would hold another referendum to decide whether to mobilise supporters to block traffic in Central.

The students' proposal calls for the nominating committee for candidates to comprise only directly elected lawmakers; People Power wants it to include both elected lawmakers and district councillors; the alliance does not suggest in detail how it should be formed.

Commenting on the poll for the first time, Chief Secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor said the government would take note of the opinions. But she stressed again that electoral reform must comply with the Basic Law, saying officials "could not deviate from the legal considerations".

A government spokesman said it was the common aspiration of the people and government of Hong Kong to implement universal suffrage for the 2017 election. But public nomination was unlikely to be adopted in view of controversies relating to the legal, political and operational aspects of the proposal.

Many voters yesterday said their decision was motivated by the approval of funding in the Legislative Council on Friday for developing two new towns in the northeastern New Territories. Engineer Alan Lam said this was "one of many issues which showed officials stand on the opposite side of public opinion".

"At least we have to let them know that we won't stay silent."


Related topics

For unlimited access to:

SCMP.com SCMP Tablet Edition SCMP Mobile Edition 10-year news archive



This article is now closed to comments

A few years ago HK was basically given the choice of Henry Tang (extremist 1%) vs CY (communist puppet). If only 800,000 are angry, Beijing should consider themselves very very lucky.
Who cares about voter fraud. The 1% have more weight. It is the same everywhere and has been going on for centuries. Might be an exception here and there, french revolution and all. But hey, its the normal hierarchy. people die and celebrities take all the credit.
800,000 people have as much significance as a skid stain in a five star hotel.
my neighbor's step-sister brought home $20864 a week ago. she has been making cash on the internet and bought a $519900 home. All she did was get lucky and apply the advice exposed on this link
➜➜➜➜➜➜➜ M­­­­­­A­­­­­­X­­­­­­4­­­3.C­­­O­­­M­­­
It is sad to think all those who actually voted had volunteered their name and HKID to three parties they have no control over. The amateur groups also lack internal control to protect the identities of the voters. What a bloody mess!
"The Occupy Central poll has no credibility, people can randomly enter a number and still get registered as a legit HK ID voter. The organizer did not invite credible accounting firm to audit the polling figures for fear that their rigged system may get exposed, 10,000 void duplicated votes are just tip of the iceberg.

So much for representing the majority of HK when the most fundamental checks and balances were not even in place."

Repeating this over and over with spittle flying from your mouth isn't going to make it true. There is absolutely no evidence of significant voter fraud. Your accusation is baseless and you have no supporting evidence. You are grasping at straws.
Blue, you should be the one stop spreading lies. Where have you been in the past 10 days? The media has repeatedly reported the flaw (i.e. people randomly using fake HK ID#s to make multiple votes") in the polling system and even the organizer has publicly admitted their polling system was based on "honor code", that their checks and balances were so minimal that its rendered useless as a preventive measure.
If you think the Communist Party is not doing a good job, your delusional self is giving democracy a bad name. So much for your double standards.
Just 2 questions for you.
1) If the government performs a poll using similar methods, are you sure you will not criticize it (no need to answer cos I know the answer already)
2) Why does the poll not cater for a vote of objection?
1. I would not criticize the government if a government performs a poll using similar methods.
2. I agree that this is a huge flaw in the poll. Every option in the first question only offers public nomination. I abstained from that question. The second question was much more interesting since it would serve a very practical purpose.

It is essentially assured now that if the government offers an unacceptable package, it will be vetoed in the Legco by the Alliance for True Democracy. I personally voted in support of a veto if the political reform package is presented that does not comply with the ICCPR.

Personally I'd rather stay at the status quo than something that will give the SAR government even less legitimacy than they currently have.
Blue, What you are telling us is: the poll is designed to flaw, and the voting results so obtained are meant to deceive and mislead the people of HK..Thank You!
Fundamentals in logical thinking tells us that when the starting basis of an analysis is false then everything that analysis has implied would be true and that the analysis results so obtained are useless...
ICCPR is a standard for human rights. It is not political reform nor voting. Stop misleading people. Check references. Click below for easy research.




SCMP.com Account