Back

Note: This article represents the view of the authors and not their respective universities.

Before the march on July 1, the Hong Kong SAR Government underestimated public anger and expected only about 30,000 would take to the streets. The Secretary for Security Regina Ip, at the signs of gathering crowds on the eve of the march, stressed that the public might join the rally not so much because they were against the legislation of Article 23 but as a way of spending their holiday.

None could dispute the multitude of demonstrators as half a million people turned out on July 1. The Legislative Councilors from the Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong and some pro-China celebrities started to explain away the turnout by alleging that the demonstrators were "misled" and that Article 23 was nothing but one of their many claims.

A common purpose behind all the above discourse on the march is to reduce its representativeness and to dampen its political impact. The key question to us is whether the foregoing allegations are empirically supported?

On July 1, our research team surveyed a sample of the demonstrators at different times and at different locations in Victoria Park and along the trail. Depending on the preference of the respondents, they were interviewed either by a self-administered questionnaire, or answered the questions face-to-face with our interviewers. Out of a total sample of 1,323 demonstrators above age 15, we had 1,154 questionnaires successfully completed, 62 incomplete cases, and 107 refusals, yielding a response rate of 87.2%. We have also designed an online survey, and have received more than 20,000 responses. However, what we are reporting here is derived from the on-site survey only.

Why did the citizens join the march? Table 1 shows that 90 per cent of the respondents stated that they took to the streets because they were against the legislation of Article 23. At the same time, more than 90 per cent of the respondents said they were "disappointed by" and "could no longer tolerate" the overall performance of the SAR Government. Being the Chief Executive of HKSAR, CH Tung is no doubt ultimately responsible for the Government's performance. The grievances of the demonstrators are thus very clear: The first is against Article 23 and the second is against CH Tung. The Government will miss the whole point if it accepts the interpretation that the demonstrators' grievances are so diverging that they do not have any focus. Misreading public opinion is bound to get the Government into deeper trouble.

Undoubtedly, the public was dissatisfied with CH Tung. Our concern is whether the demonstrators want him to step down or not. The answer is also loud and clear: More than 80% of the respondents agreed that "Tung should step down." When asked if Hong Kong people should resort to the use of "people power" to force Tung to step down," an equal proportion of respondents gave their consent. It should be noticed that these response were made by citizens who are normally law-abiding and politically apathetic. Now that more than 80%, or 400,000 demonstrators, agreed to the use of "people power", anyone who is interested in Hong Kong politics should take note of the breadth and intensify of such attitudes.

Who are the demonstrators? How likely it is for them to be misled?

Let's look at the demonstrators' education, occupation and social status. Table 2 shows that more than 60% of the respondents had tertiary education or above. About 40% were professionals or semi-professionals. About 60% characterized their family background as "middle class." As for age, more than 80% were between age 20 and 50. The demonstrators were the backbones of Hong Kong society, together they formed the stabilizing force of our society, and was the source of our opinion leaders. If they were misled as alleged, how can we explain the fact the less educated tended not to take to the streets? If the Government chooses to ignore these people, who should it listen to?

To conclude, the poor performance of the SAR Government and the restrictiveness of Article 23 were the causes of the demonstration. The march was the citizens' vote of no confidence in CH Tung. The political agenda for Hong Kong are obvious: First, how to enact an Article 23 legislation which can put the public at ease? Second, how to reorganize CH Tung's administration? Third, how to democratize Hong Kong's political system. Neglect of these issues will only deepen the ongoing crisis beyond the point of repair.