The election where everyone was a loser Who won? Nobody. Who lost? Everybody. That's Public Eye's reading of Sunday's district council elections. Voters didn't punish the democrats for instigating the Occupy movement, nor did they reward them for fighting for so-called genuine democracy. Likewise, voters didn't reward the pro-Beijing camp for opposing the 79-day occupation which paralysed key areas, nor did they punish it for not supporting democracy. Neither side gained or lost from Occupy. Much is being made of the young "umbrella soldiers" - offshoots of the Occupy movement - as a rising political force. But the actual numbers tell a different story. Of the more than 50 candidates who contested the elections, only seven won. Youngspiration, the best-known offshoot, scored just one win out of nine candidates. Famed missile-thrower "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung's League of Social Democrats didn't win a single seat. Neither did the extreme localist groups. If we must pick a winner, then it has to be the NeoDemocrats. It won 15 of the 16 seats it contested. But the reason for the win could also be interpreted as a loss for Hong Kong. The NeoDemocrats are moderate localists who oppose the flood of mainlanders into Hong Kong. They won most of their seats in the border areas where residents are most affected by the flood. Their victory sends a strong warning to officials who want even more than the 48 million who came last year. But will they heed the warning? Of course not. Sunday's election put into sharper focus our political polarisation. It highlighted societal resentment against mainlanders. Everybody lost and nobody won because the stalemate means we cannot progress as a society. A terminal case of pan-dem posturing For once, can the pan-democrats please put aside their loathing of Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying and the Communist Party for the sake of Hong Kong's best interests? Their politicising of everything has already claimed many victims. But let's not add the high-speed rail link to Guangzhou to the list. Public Eye is not defending the over-budget, much-delayed link. But now that it's already too late to turn the clock back on the HK$85 billion project, what purpose other than political grandstanding does it serve for the pan-democrats to oppose mainland immigration officials operating at the rail link's West Kowloon terminus? It's feeble to argue that stationing mainland officials here goes against the "one country, two systems" principle. They're not here to undermine our core values. Their sole role at the terminus will be to clear entry into the mainland after passengers have gone through Hong Kong immigration and to clear exit from the mainland for passengers entering Hong Kong. Doesn't it defeat the purpose of a high-speed railway if both procedures are not done at the same terminus? So don't make a big political issue out of nothing. mickchug@gmail.com