Back

Note: This article represents the view of the author and not the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Not only is the July 1 protest a grand eruption of public opinion, its power continues to affect the legislative procedure and dictate the government's actions. It has guiding effects on the public mood as well. The protest shapes public opinion and affirms the opposition camp as the mainstream voice. The agenda-setting theory postulates that the main function of the mass media is not to tell the public what to think but what to think about. The July 1 protest not only teaches people what to think about, but also what stand they should take.

Surveys conducted by the Public Opinion Programme at the University of Hong Kong find that citizens become more and more against the legislation of Article 23. The surveys include the following three questions: (1) Whether to support the legislation in principle; (2) Whether to support the initial proposals for the legislation of Article 23 by the government; (3) Whether to support the content of the draft National Security Bill. Three surveys were conducted, one right after July 1 and the others done respectively one week and two weeks beforehand. Comparing the results from the surveys, we can see that from mid-June to early July, public opinion had changed significantly.

From the Table we can see that after recent heated discussions and the July 1 protest, the number of people saying "don't know" or "difficult to say" has declined. Most people now have a clear view on the legislation. For those without a view before, many of them now take the opposition side. The mainstream view on the legislation has formed, and the July 1 protest has a focusing effect.

In terms of whether to support the legislation in principle, the opposition camp rose to 10.4% and had a share of 62.1%. Supporters dwindled by 1.6% and the share was 18.7%. Two weeks ago there were 20.7% who had no clear view, and after July 1 the figure was down to only 6.2%.

Regarding the initial proposals by the government, citizens' views tended to adopt the opposition side in the past two weeks. Those in opposition rose 15.8% and those in support dropped by 2.7%. The no-opinion category declined from 36.3% to 19.2%.

The most noteworthy aspect is how did the public react to the draft National Security Bill. Comparing the data gathered from these two weeks, those in opposition rose by 14.7%, and the ratio of supporters remained basically the same. If we only compare the week of July 1, the opposition side increased by 8.4% in just one week. Those who had no opinion dropped from 34.9% to 18.5%.

The anti-legislation camp is a broad and cross-class coalition. Irrespective of gender, age, education level and occupation, many people hold opposition view. Among the less than 20% firm supporters of the legislation, many of them are older males, aged above 50 and with primary or below education. Many professionals are against the legislation in both principle and content, and this should have some indication for the functional constituency legislators when they vote.

The survey done by HKU's Public Opinion Programme between July 2 and 4 found that 76.6% of the public were against continuing the legislative process on July 9. Only 10.5% supported such move. Those saying "half and half" constituted 5.7% and those had no opinion 7.1%.

Among the 76.7% nay-sayers, 31.6% were "quite oppose" while 45.1% were "strongly oppose." This distribution highlights the strong sentiment of the opposition camp. The Chief Executive announced on July 5 that the draft bill would be tabled in the Legislative Council as scheduled with major changes in three items. As of now, no scientific opinion poll data are yet available to reflect people's latest view on this. It is estimated that the government's move may be able to allay some citizens' concerns and sooth part of the opposing voices, but it is believed that many still do not buy Tung Chee-Hwa's idea.

There is a viewpoint advocating that the public do not oppose the legislation in principle. The government even said the citizens generally support the legislation. However, recent surveys all found that citizens do not support the legislation even in principle, as those in opposition stood at 62.1%. Why is there such a wide knowledge gap? One possible reason is that the citizens were really not against the legislation in principle, but they changed their mind after reading the proposed legislative content. As a result, they rejected it in principle as well. There is another possibility: what is meant by "support the legislation in principle" is not something verbatim. Deep down in people's heart they do not welcome the legislation. But they cannot say otherwise since the Basic Law has already stipulated such legislation. Thus, they can only accept it in regret and they surely do not support it whole-heartedly. If they can say what they really want, the majority does not want the legislation, and survey results possibly reflect such view.

The July 1 protest opens our eyes and widens the space for imagination. It is a political paradigm shift in Hong Kong, catapulting the local political ecology into a new era. Before July 1, what people feel about Hong Kong was all negative: the society was severely divided, citizens felt powerless, the Legislative Council was tightly controlled by the pro-government alliance, and people just hoped the government could grant a bit more of recession in the legislation of Article 23. After July 1, the mainstream public opinion has risen, the civic power is fully charged, the balance of power in the Legislative Council has shifted, people want more revisions in the legislation, and they demand faster pace in the reform of the political system.

Half a million people used their feet to oppose the legislation, but actual number of dissenters is far more than that. Due to various reasons many people did not participate in the July 1 protest, but their hearts were in unison with those who took to the streets. Public opinion polls show exactly that: those in opposition stood at 62.1%, which far out-numbered the supporters.

With the poll data at hand, it is simply impossible to repeat that "the public are severely divided on the legislation." The truth is that most of the people have the same view. The public opinion is clear: there is no serious dispute among the citizens. If there is one, that is between the citizens and the government. It is hoped that the government and its coalition would truly listen to public opinion and do not try stupid acts like offering free meals and movie tickets to the citizens on July 1. They should not mobilize a few supporters to put on a show, trying to create false impression that the public is divided, that "while some oppose, there are many who support the bill." They should never say again the public is "misled" as this only insults the intelligence of the people. Citizens protested with their feet on July 1, and they shall cast their votes in the elections.

It is crystal clear how the government has misgoverned Hong Kong in the past six years. A proverb says: "Every cloud has a silver lining." Poor management by the government leads to the public demonstration on July 1. We may have to "thank" the Chief Executive for bring the following "good things" for Hong Kong: (1) Citizens become more united and the society shows higher cohesiveness. (2) The July 1 protest and the fight against SARS show the world how lovely and respected are the Hong Kong people. (3) The legislation has a positive impact on the age-old political apathy in Hong Kong, making the people more concerned about politics. The protest is a civic lesson for the people, and they begin to understand more about the importance of direct election. More youngsters may register as voters as a result. (4) It forces the motherland to save Hong Kong by granting goodies like CEPA. (5) It also let the Central Government realize that they cannot simply find someone who they can trust but is incapable to govern Hong Kong. In order to avoid inviting troubles for themselves, they have to find a person who is trustworthy, capable and welcomed by the people.