The sixth Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will soon begin at least another year of business because of the postponement of the election for the seventh-term LegCo until September next year. With the month of October just a week away, time is running out for opposition parties to decide whether their lawmakers will stay in LegCo in accordance with a decision passed by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress last month or resign en masse, a highly controversial idea some of them have been pushing for since the 2020 LegCo election was officially postponed.

Following some negotiating and bargaining behind closed doors, the opposition camp agreed earlier this month to hold a public opinion poll this week and find out if the majority of Hong Kong residents believe opposition lawmakers should stay or resign. Given the importance of following the NPCSC decision that LegCo continue legislative work for no less than a year, it is exceptionally ridiculous for opposition parties to let a public opinion poll determine if their lawmakers should quit or not. Everyone who cares about Hong Kong’s political affairs should watch closely and think hard about this unusual, if not bizarre, development. 

Let’s begin with the design of the “public opinion poll”, which was agreed upon after multiple discussions and changes: Only the opinion of the supporters of 15 opposition lawmakers who have committed to this extraordinary maneuver will be counted as valid choices.

This mechanism may seem fair, but in practice it will benefit opposition lawmakers inclined to stay, because similar in disputes of yesteryear, most of those who demanded resignation en masse were “localist” newcomers with no LegCo experience. So far, only two incumbent opposition lawmakers are for collective resignation — Eddie Chu Hoi-dick and Raymond Chan Chi-chuen — but have opted out of the poll. As such, the opinion of those who support collective resignation will most likely not be represented in this poll. So, voila! The answer to the stay-or-leave question is quite obvious even though the “public opinion poll” is still ongoing. Normally, the legitimacy of such polls relies on representation, validity and reliability, but this one is apparently specifically designed to produce a predetermined result by eliminating unwanted variables. Thus it will be a bona fide insult to modern political science, to say the least.

What a shame the traditional “pan-democrats” remain seemingly unaware or actually in denial that it was precisely their lack of political accountability that cost them the leading role in the opposition camp, as well as many traditional supporters

Apart from its inherent problems, the stay-or-leave “public opinion poll” also suffers from the traditional “pan-democrats’” lack of political accountability over matters of constitutional significance. Both Chu and Chan have, citing their own political principles and objectives, stated they want all opposition lawmakers to resign and need no second opinion. That is why they have opted out of the “public opinion poll” and no one cared if their decision was “democratic” or not. By the same token, if the traditional “pan-democrats” are as determined to stay as Chu and Chan are to quit, why have they not opted out of the “public opinion poll” as Chu and Chan have and let the world know they believe staying is better than leaving? Why do they need some “popular opinion” as an excuse if they have already made up their minds? 

The opposition camp has been split into two factions for some time now — the traditional “pan-democrats” and rebranded “localism” advocates. The latter are a lot more radical and populist than the “old guard” and are publicly challenging their dominance in the opposition camp, as shown clearly in their so-called internal primary election in July, supposedly to decide who should be the opposition candidates in the now-postponed LegCo election.

The traditional “pan-democrats” were apparently caught unprepared for such an ultra-populist exercise, and were forced to give in time and again to the aggressive challengers. Now the traditional “pan-democrats” have conceded defeat once again to the rising “populists” by agreeing to let a fixed “public opinion poll” decide the fate of their political careers, presumably because they could not afford to lose this kind of “popular” endorsement within the opposition camp. What a shame the traditional “pan-democrats” remain seemingly unaware or actually in denial that it was precisely their lack of political accountability that cost them the leading role in the opposition camp, as well as many traditional supporters.

That said, there is still an opportunity for the traditional “pan-democrats” to regain political accountability. Since the ongoing “public opinion poll” will most likely decide in favor of staying over leaving, meaning the remaining opposition lawmakers should continue performing their constitutional duty for no less than a year, the traditional “pan-democrats” are better off abandoning political confrontation and becoming the “loyal opposition” instead. That is clearly the right path to follow in the post-National Security Law political environment if they can read reality correctly.

With the arm-wrestling between China and the United States intensifying to dangerous levels, the room for survival is undeniably gone for those committed to undermining the HKSAR government by paralyzing LegCo, namely the ultra-radical “localism” advocates, or the “burn-together gang”. The traditional “pan-democrats” stand a much better chance of regaining their lost political relevance if they have the necessary political wisdom and courage to do the right thing this time by becoming for real the “loyal opposition” in the legislative branch of the establishment. As long as they sincerely uphold the “one country, two systems” principle and the Basic Law of the HKSAR, no one will challenge their right to be critical of bills and policies propsed by the executive branch for their scrutiny and approval in the best interest of Hong Kong society. That is what the central authorities and majority of Hong Kong residents have always expected of them. Why has it been so difficult for them to be politically accountable after all these years?

The author is senior research officer of the One Country Two Systems Research Institute.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.