Grace Zhou, a member of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macau Studies
The dust has settled on Hong Kong’s 8th Legislative Council election, with voter turnout rising from 30.2% in 2021 to 31.9% this time. Hong Kong society and the new electoral system are gradually working out a new way of relating to each other. Rather than fixating on the numbers, a more meaningful question now is not whether people voted, but who did, on what basis they made their decisions, and how those evolving criteria might shape executive‑legislative relations over the next term.
The most notable part this time is how voters made their judgments. An increasing number of voters are no longer voting solely on the basis of party affiliation or political camp, but first examining a candidate’s résumé, professional competence and their actual performance in local districts or sectors before casting their vote—in other words, marking a “report card” with their ballots.
The 2021 poll was the first LegCo election after the reforms, and the public were unfamiliar with the new system. Four years on, the basic framework has stabilised, and voters have understood how the new system operates. As that sense of unfamiliarity recedes, attention naturally has shifted back to the candidates themselves.
If the previous era of high-intensity politics was driven by emotion and identity‑based voting, this election looks more like a cool-headed calculation. Voters care about who, within the existing system, can actually address concrete problems such as building safety, public housing maintenance, and medical and elderly care. Instead of being satisfied simply with a few slogans, they look for those who have put forward workable proposals and followed through over time. Many candidates who are not members of the main political parties emerged by specialised expertise and community service. Clearly, within the current political structure, voters are still using their ballots to reshape the internal balance of power. Emotions have cooled, but the bar has been raised – voters will remember who asks serious questions in the chamber and who merely shows up for the photo op.
Under the principle of “patriots governing Hong Kong” , executive leadership is the prerequisite, and the executive and legislature moving “in the same direction” is seen as a guarantee of stability. Lawmakers can and should, at the strategic level, support the move from governance to greater prosperity, economic development and safeguarding national security. But voters also want to see specific policies subjected to open debate and amendment, major incidents and governance failures be reasonably examined and institutionally reviewed; and budgets and bills be judiciously examined instead of a quick pass.
If the new LegCo is to respond to this pragmatic and rational public sentiment, it needs to position itself as a cooperative overseer.
Cooperation here means upholding executive primacy while leveraging the legislature’s professional expertise and public mandate to help refine and improve government policy. In practice, this could involve task forces, district networks and industry consultations to collate public input in the policy design phase and feed it into official deliberations at an early stage. When crises emerge, lawmakers and the executive should move in tandem — supporting speedy appropriations and measures while communicating feedback to policymakers in time. On long‑term issues such as the Northern Metropolis, transport infrastructure and elderly care, there should be sustained follow‑up through cross‑sector mechanisms — rather than disbanding committees upon the completion of a project and leaving it unattended.
Oversight is not about reflexive opposition at the eleventh hour but about targeted, constructive scrutiny throughout questioning and debate. Lawmakers should press for data and impact assessments, making full use of oral and written questions, and insist on disclosure of key figures and risk evaluations. They should also put forward alternative proposals, offering clear adjustments to procedures, supporting measures and timetables, so that debate becomes an instrument of refinement rather than mere rhetoric. Previous years of stagnation on the regulation of ride-hailing in Hong Kong was largely the result of simple opposition without substantive proposals. In terms of implementation and outcomes, follow-up committees, site visits and engagement with frontline stakeholders should be adopted to examine whether policies are being distorted in practice or resources misallocated. They should also help prompt timely adjustments where needed, rather than waiting until problems erupt and then vetoing everything in one go.
Overall, if the new LegCo is to respond to this rational, pragmatic public mandate, it must be a rigorous questioner on public safety and livelihood issues, a meticulous guardian over legislation and budgets, and an honest collaborator in executive interactions.
This election shows that there is still a group of voters willing to spend time finding out who the candidates are and what they have done before making up their minds. That conscientiousness is perhaps the most valuable seed of a new electoral culture. It is now up to the new LegCo and the HKSAR Government to answer that: they must demonstrate with visible reform outcomes that the system can not only maintain stability and properly manage elections, but also solve problems and improve people’s lives; and they must convince citizens that political confrontation has cooled and the system is more trustworthy. If they can respond to these expectations, there is a genuine opportunity for the principle of “patriots governing Hong Kong” to be gradually translated into good governance that people can benefit from in their daily lives.
InsightSpeak
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
