The 2012 Legislative Council (LegCo) Election was wrapped up on Sept 9. As far as the results are concerned, there is no doubt some people are happy and some are worried. No matter what the results mean to the candidates, their parties or organizations, as well as their supporters, all understand they competed on the same playing field, by the same set of rules and might have even followed the same type of strategy. Therefore everyone must respect the choice of each voter and the results their choices produced under the existing electoral system.

However, some political parties, media entities and individuals recently lashed out at the existing electoral system and even made unfounded and slanderous accusations against some voters' decisions simply because they don't like the LegCo election results. This is typical sore-loser mentality and unbecoming of true democracy.

One of those detractors of the latest LegCo elections is Lam Hang-chee, founder of the Hong Kong Economic Journal (HKEJ). In his column in HKEJ on Sept 14, with the headline "Loyalists' tricks won't work for long as lawmakers' true colors shine in serving Hongkongers", Lam wrote: "Another bad move of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (BAD) and the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (HKFTU) that Hongkongers detest is that, in order to secure their wins and take control of the LegCo, they spared no effort in taking advantage of senior, illiterate residents' appetite for small favors and soliciting their support with activities that bordered on bribery. With abundant financial and personnel resources and extensive experience in local community work as well as the excellent resumes of such pro-central government candidates as Jasper Tsang, Tam Yiu-chung, Lee Wai-king and Ip Kwok-him, who are already part of the establishment, these two groups have what it takes to rally enough support for their candidates to win LegCo seats without resorting to 'vote planting', currying favor, vote distribution, offering voters free ride to polling stations, discount tours and seafood meals. It's a pity they lacked self-confidence in winning an election that was structurally favorable to the 'loyalists' and went ahead with their elaborate voter-swaying maneuvers, which seemed really unfair!" This is a typical example of sore-loser mentality.

Lam as a heavy weight in Hong Kong press and literary giant enjoys tremendous respect from all corners of society, but this time, by making the comments quoted above, he left people wondering if he did not understand various parties' election campaigns or could not accept the results and poured out such biased and unfounded accusations because of his own political stand.

For starters, under the proportional representation system, legislative elections are won by those with more votes than any other candidate, and neither the DAB nor HKFTU was the first in Hong Kong to employ "vote distribution" tactics in LegCo elections. It was the Democratic Party (DP), the leading group in the opposition camp back then, that resorted to "vote distribution" in Western New Territories and Eastern New Territories geographical constituencies back in the 2000 LegCo elections. The DAB was merely following the DP's example in "vote distribution" in this year's LegCo elections.

The opposition camp was able to win more than 63 percent of the seats in geographical constituency (GC) direct elections with slightly more than 60 percent of votes in the 2008 LegCo elections, thanks to reasonably effective "vote distribution". Cyd Ho Sau-lan, of Citizen Power back then, declared afterwards "the pan-democrats were lucky to have won four of the seats available in (Hong Kong Island) GC direct elections, thanks to the collective wisdom of the voters." The pro-establishment parties won 48 percent of the seats in GC direct elections with 45 percent of votes this year. Should one assume this result had nothing to do with the "collective wisdom of pro-establishment supporters"?

Also, the "assortment of favors" Lam mentioned in his commentary is not an exclusive trick of the DAB or HKFTU or any other pro-establishment group, either. The opposition camp, including the DP, the Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood (ADPL) and even the elitist Civic Party and radical groups such as People Power (PP) and League of Social Democrats (LSD), played the "small favors" card as well. For instance, Lee Wing-tak, of the DP, threw a discount tea party for senior voters, after registering as a LegCo election candidate this time.

Let's not forget that, on Sept 9, 2008, Lam published a commentary in HKEJ with the headline "Heroes of all persuasions except the showbiz are in the LegCo". He wrote: "this writer cannot believe that voters who have lived in a totally free society such as Hong Kong would cast their ballots according to the wishes of those who offered them small favors. They voted for pro-establishment candidates because they were confident they would contribute to Hong Kong's stability and prosperity." I wonder what convinced Lam this time around that voters supported pro-establishment candidates because of those "small favors".

Every voter can decide which candidate to vote for, according to his own free will, which is why "vote distribution" and "urgent pleas" by various political parties depend entirely on each voter's individual decision. If the work and philosophy of the DAB and HKFTU fall short of voter expectations, how can our "vote distribution" strategy work? In other words, does Lam's complaint against pro-establishment parties mean he thinks all the hundreds of thousand voters who supported the DAB and HKFTU candidates lacked the freedom to make their own decisions or they are all senile, frail and illiterate residents who are only interested in "small favors"? What an insult it would be to so many voters if that is what he was saying!

The author is a Hong Kong member of the CPPCC, chairman of the DAB and a LegCo member.

(HK Edition 09/28/2012 page3)