[in translation]

Netizens have always been smart.  In the saying "The masses are the true heroes whereas we are often naive and risible," the masses are the netizens.  Yet, the cadre leaders never praise the netizens as the true heroes.  On the contrary, they are suspicious of the netizens.  But no matter what, the grassroots-level cadres are becoming more respectful of the netizens.

There is the saying "We went for a stroll in order to encounter a good mayor."  In this saying, the citizens are like timid stepchildren sneaking out for a stroll and encounter the mayor.  I believe that if it were not for the Internet platform, the strolling citizens could encounter just about anything except the mayor.  The probability of that encounter occurring is like winning the 100 million RMB lottery, with a single occurrence last year.

From the technological viewpoint, the mobile telephone is the endpoint for personal information (both sending and receiving) and it is a part of the Internet.  The story about "encountering the mayor during a stroll" is flawed because it is seldom replicated.  But there is another method that does not share the same flaw -- instead, people can do something independently of each other, they do not have to "stroll" in the street and they can still "encounter the mayor."

On January 3, People Net published a set of photographs of the scene in a courtroom in a certain county courthouse.  The chief judge, the two jurors and the clerk were all dressed in civilian clothes; the judges were using their mobile telephone while the hearing was going on and the clerk was smoking a cigarette as he listened.

This news was reported in the morning!  While the judge and company were smoking and making telephone calls, someone in the court took photographs and uploaded them.  The information was then quickly spread around China.  The three judges never expected that before they even stepped out of the courtroom, they had already become national news celebrities.  This will become a legend of this Internet era.

On the next day, People Net followed up with a news item that is the equivalent of "the mayor showed up." The chief judge of the case (who was also the Chief Justice of the court) has been "suspended pending investigation."  On the previous day, the caption on the photographs said that "such behaviors are not rare in courtrooms."  But once the court people achieved the honorable mentions on the Internet, they immediately felt embarrassed and took action to placate the public.

Next we follow up the cases of "the school principal being arrested for asking the county mayor's signature" and "the county police goes to Beijing to arrest a reporter."  In the former case, the incident had occurred one week ago without a stir.  Once a media report appeared, the Internet boiled over.  Within two days, the case was completely overturned.  The penalties on the arrested principal were rescinded, and his job was restored.  He had been ordered to apologize to the county mayor, but now the country party secretary, mayor, public security bureau director and Department of Education director made a collective apology to him!  In the latter case, China Youth Daily reported on January 7 that the Xifeng county (Liaoning province) police went to Beijing to arrest a reporter.  The whole Internet was up in arms.  On January 8 (the day after the report appeared), the Xifeng public security bureau had already formally withdrew the case and rescinded the arrest warrant.  On the afternoon of January 9, the Xifeng team arrived in Beijing to "apologize."

Before the citizens became netizens, the grassroots-level cadres and bureaucrats could often hide the facts.  Nowadays, they cannot block the entire Internet anymore because they don't have the technological means.  So they have to "adapt" to the Internet and reverse themselves at Internet speed!  These are things that they didn't appreciate even with decades of political training, but now they are "forced" to do so by the Internet.

The Internet has provided a technology to produce a platform with equality of information access.  Each netizen has the means to participate in public issues.  You do not need to be a reporter.  When you observe the mess in that courtroom, you can photograph the scene and send it to any website.  In the Internet era, every netizen is also a reporter.

The Internet is rapidly, profoundly and fully transforming human society.  Individuals and governments must adjust themselves to the rules of the Internet.  China has now become a "grand nation of netizens."  China has 210 million netizens, just 500,000 behind the United States of America.  China may have the most fanatical netizens in the world.  They hold great, even excessive, expectations for the Internet.  Their Internet existence -- whether they are able to exercise their legal rights and whether they are becoming smarter and smarter"-- affects the harmony of the entire society in China.

獨立媒體離線沙龍：和諧政治中的雜音

在和諧為本的審查制度下，國內的博客們，以不同的方法去作民間報導，表達自己的意見，以吃蟹為樂；而又有一些充當橋樑的博客，以飛快的速度，把國內博客的文章翻譯轉載；這些經驗，對強調國情教育的香港，有什麼啟發呢？

講者：

北風　　（國內BLOGGER）
宋以朗　（譯評博客，把國內，香港和台灣的在地新聞和互聯網消息，譯成英文發放海外）

主持：

林藹雲　（香港獨立媒體網和 Globalvoicesonline編輯）

時間 /地點：

２００８年１月１９日(星期六 ) 下午15：00－18：00
灣仔軒尼詩道365號富德樓9樓


 
Joel Martinsen (Danwei) noted that in Chinese non-attributive forum culture, history is doomed to be repeated.  Specifically, he had noted these photographs in 2004 (see The Voice of the People).

On December 27, <Joint News Broadcast> showed a news story in which a 13-year-old girl used "Very Yellow, Very Violent" to describe a web page that she came across.  This phrase immediately became the hottest phrase on the Chinese Internet.  At the same time, the previously rarely known website Saohuang.cn ("Sweep away pornography") suddenly became popular.
 
Saohuang.cn was founded on August 28, 2007.  This is a typical Web 2.0 website.  On the website, there is a list of websites (including their names, screen captures and URLs) that the visitors are asked to rate as either "porn" or "not porn."  Each website will then accumulate an "average porn index" based upon these inputs.

As a result of this mode of operation, some people suspect that SaoHuang.cn is actually spreading porn, albeit unintentionally.

yWeekend: After the sudden popularity of "very yellow, very violent," has your traffic volume soared?
Saohuang.cn: We used to have about 500 plus unique IP visits per day.  Now we are getting 5,000 plus.  But we don't really care about these numbers.

yWeekend: The number of actual complaints sent to the website has not increased by a lot.  So most of these new visitors did not come to file complaints against websites?
Saohuang.cn:  Recently, there were clearly more complaints from anonymous as well as  newly registered users.  These are new people.  We cannot exclude the possibility that some people are using Saohuang.cn as a guide to look for porn websites.  However, Saohuang.cn is only bringing tens (or at most hundreds) of visitors where those websites can get hundreds of thousand or even millions of visitors through their own promotions.  So who is having a worse influence?

yWeekend: I entered "Saohuang.cn" on Baidu and the first link is "The extreme temptation from girls with big tits -- Saohuang.cn." That website contained a large number of photographs with suggestive captions.  Now that your audience reach is bigger, aren't you objectively re-disseminating harmful content further?
Saohuang.cn: ... No matter whether Saohuang.cn end up giving free promotions to these websites, they still exist out there.  People who want to see those contents will find some way of reaching them ...

[in translation]

More than twenty thousand people marched?  Is that a lot?  Or not?  In 2004, the National People's Congress rendered an interpretation of the Basic Law of Hong Kong and rejected the possibility of double universal suffrage in 2007/2008.  In order to express their anger and opposition, the people of Hong Kong marched from Victoria Park to the China Liaison Office.  How many people were in that march?  Also 20,000!

Everybody knows what happened after the democrats said back then that they would insist on striving for universal suffrage in 2007/2008.  After vetoing the proposed political reform bill (for the Legco election in 2008) in December 2005, the pan-democrats achieved nothing of significance.  In 2006, the Civil Human Rights Front organized the July 1st march with a slogan for "Insist on striving for universal suffrage in 2007/2008."  In mid-2006, the Civic Party was founded with a call for everybody to leave the June 4th baggage behind.  In October that year, the Civic Party announced its participation in the small circle election.  Simultaneously, without any explanation, they adopted 2012 universal suffrage into their political platform.  Just like Tung Chee-hwa who thinks face is more important than honesty, if the pan-democrats don't talk about fighting for something after a while, it means that they have abandoned the effort.

With that history in mind, how could the pan-democrats exploit the 20,000 spirited citizens once more?  The slogan of this march was "Insist on striving for double universal suffrage in 2012, reject fake democracy in 2017."  Will the pan-democrats really be able to continue to insist?

On December 24, I published the column "Anson Chan is charge of surrendering" here.  She entered the Legco by-election as the first person to retreat from 2012 double universal suffrage at a time when the pan-democrats knew full well that there was no hope for 2012.

The quality of Hong Kong political reporters is so poor.  On the day before the march, Anson Chan published an essay in two newspapers to declare that she was no longer insisting on double universal suffrage in 2012.  She reversed her campaign promise less than one month ago.  Not a single reporter asked her why she betrayed her campaign promise, or how she could betray the public trust so easily.

The beginning of Mrs. Chan's essay immediately betrayed the citizens and pan-democrats.  She wrote:  "I want to state that I have no intention of opposing the central government."  Does she mean to say that the pan-democrats are opposing the central government?  That the citizens are slick disobedient people?  And that is why she is drawing a line to distinguish herself from them!  She added: "I think now is the time to put down our differences and re-focus on establishing a clear road map and time table for universal suffrage in the 2017 Chief Executive election and the Legco election at not later than 2012.

So in what way or manner is the political position of Anson Chan different from those of Donald Tsang, Regina Ip, the DAB and the Liberal Party?  For Mrs. Chan to publish this essay one day before the march "to strive for double universal suffrage in 2012," isn't this a betray of her supporters?  She carried a personal slogan during the march: "Implement genuine universal suffrage as quickly as possible, strive for clear road map."  Naturally, she did not dare to mention 2012.  If this is not being thick-skinned, what is?

[in translation]

Near the beginning of this year, four police officers from Xifeng county, Liaoning province went to Legal System Daily to serve a summons to reporter Zhu Wenna.  This drew a strong public response that ultimately made the Xifeng government withdraw the case.  This seemed to be old news by now.  But I am still waiting for further developments because I want to know more details and what the various people were thinking.

I want to know what the Xifeng government and the four police officers were thinking.  Zhu Wenna's article appeared on January 1st.  On January 4th, the four police officers arrived in Beijing with the summons.  The Xifeng county party secretary Zhang Zhiguo claimed that he had never heard of this case.  So who was responsible for setting the up case, evaluating the evidence and issuing the summons?  Without the orders of superiors, the four police officers could not have gone to Beijing to make an arrest.  If Xifeng county party secretary Zhang Zhiguo was not the person who ordered them, then who is it?  On what legal basis did this unidentified person act?  What is his/her understanding of the law?

According to the report, the "Beijing police" were also present when the four Xifeng police officers arrived at Legal System Daily to make the arrest.  I would like to have an explanation from the Beijing police.  When the four Xifeng police officers showed up, they obviously had the required documents whereupon the Beijing police accompanied them to the newspaper under the Chinese Central Politics and Law Committee without any delay.  So which "Beijing police" department was it?  When he/she worked with the county police from Liaoning person to arrest a Beijing citizen within his/her jurisdiction, does he/she know what the relevant laws are?  Beijing is the capital city of China with many senior officials for various departments and ministries.  Do the "Beijing police" cooperate with any outside police officers to arrest people?  What if the outside police officers wanted to arrest a senior central government official?  There has to be certain standards and requirements for the "Beijing police" to meet before they can cooperate in such matters.  I would like to hear the explanation from the Beijing police.

I also wanted to hear the explanation from the workers at the Beijing Legal System Daily.  As legal media workers under the Central Politics and Law Committee, they obviously know about the law.  When police officers show up at the newspaper to arrest a reporter, it does not mean that the reporter is guilty.  The guilt of the reporter should be determined in court.  Reporters do not have the special right of not being arrested.  If Xifeng county was wrong about the case, then it is possible to argue so in court.  If Zhu Wenna and her colleagues held a fundamental trust in the justice of the court, they would have stood in front of the court and defend her.  But the newspaper workers did not turn Zhu over to these police officers.  Instead, they arrange for her to go into hiding and thus prevented the police officers from carrying out the police.  When the police officers could not effect an "arrest" through obstruction, this is nothing to celebrate over.  So what problems about the legal system and process did this affair show?

The four Xifeng police officers did not sneak into Beijing.  They had all the right documents and they were accompanied by the Beijing police in broad daylight.  But their actions drew a strong public reaction such that Xifeng was forced to rescind the case and issue an apology.  This shows that many people have lost their basic trust in the local judicial systems.  Based upon prior information, people do not believe that a citizen would receive justice from the court if arrested.  It is not a good thing for society when this distrust is so widespread.  The reason why the Xifeng government failed to arrest Zhu Wenna this time was because she is a reporter at a major newspaper.  When Sun Zhigang was beaten to death in the detention center, he was a mere university student.  In fact, this was not the first time that Xifeng police went to arrest someone in Beijing.  When they arrested the businesswoman Zhao Junping (whose story was reported by Zhu Wenna), there was not a stir.  If Zhu Wenna had been a peasant woman instead of a reporter, would the Xifeng police fail?  So shouldn't we ask whether the countless number of people arrested (such as Zhao Junping) received justice from the legal system?

獨立媒體離線沙龍：和諧政治中的雜音

在和諧為本的審查制度下，國內的博客們，以不同的方法去作民間報導，表達自己的意見，以吃蟹為樂；而又有一些充當橋樑的博客，以飛快的速度，把國內博客的文章翻譯轉載；這些經驗，對強調國情教育的香港，有什麼啟發呢？

講者：

北風　　（國內BLOGGER）
宋以朗　（譯評博客，把國內，香港和台灣的在地新聞和互聯網消息，譯成英文發放海外）

主持：

林藹雲　（香港獨立媒體網和 Globalvoicesonline編輯）

時間 /地點：

２００８年１月１９日(星期六 ) 下午15：00－18：00
灣仔軒尼詩道365號富德樓9樓

Q1.  Overall, how do you feel about the National People's Congress Standing Committee's decision?
56%: Satisfied
30%: Dissatisfied
14%: No opinion
 
Q2. Do you think that the NPCSC decision helps promote democracy in Hong Kong?
52%: Yes
33%: No
15%: No opinion
 
Q3. The NPCSC decided: "The method for choosing the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council in 2012 can be amended."  How do you feel?
55%: Satisfied
24%: Dissatisfied
21%: No opinion
 
Q4. The NPCSC decided: "The Chief Executive and the Legislative Council will not elected by universal suffrage in 2012." How do you feel?
36%: Satisfied
33%: Dissatisfied
31%: No opinion
 
Q5. The NPCSC decided: "In the 2012 Legco elections, the ratio of functional constituency seats versus directly elected seats shall remain 50%/50% again."  How do you feel?
49%: Satisfied
30%: Dissatisfied
21%: No opinion
 
Q6. The NPCSC decided: "The Chief Executive shall be elected by universal suffrage in 2017." How do you feel?
65%: Satisfied
25%: Dissatisfied
10%: No opinion
 
Q7. The NPCSC decided: "After the Chief Executive is elected by universal suffrage, the Legislative Council can also do the same." How do you feel?
60%: Satisfied
25%: Dissatisfied
15%: No opinion
 
Q8. The NPCSC decided: "The nominating committee for the Chief Executive shall be formed based upon the existing rules for the Electoral Commission." How do you feel?
48%: Satisfied
27%: Dissatisfied
25%: No opinion

District TVBS Poll Actual Result
Taipei City 1 57% vs. 26% 60% vs. 39%
Taipei City 2 51% vs. 27% 52% vs. 46%
Taipei City 3 51% vs. 25% 60% vs. 38%
Taipei City 4 50% vs. 27% 62% vs. 35%
Taipei City 5 44% vs. 26% 58% vs. 41%
Taipei City 6 59% vs. 24% 67% vs. 32%
Taipei City 7 60% vs. 19% 66% vs. 32%
Taipei City 8 55% vs. 19% 72% vs. 26%
Taipei County 1 49% vs. 21% 58% vs. 40%
Taipei County 2 31% vs. 24% 40% vs. 43%
Taipei County 3 47% vs. 29% 48% vs. 50%
Taipei County 4 46% vs. 30% 52% vs. 47%
Taipei County 5 45% vs. 33% 52% vs. 47%
Taipei County 6 51% vs. 28% 57% vs. 43%
Taipei County 7 51% vs. 24% 56% vs. 42%
Taipei County 8 47% vs. 31% 60% vs. 40%
Taipei County 10 52% vs. 23% 60% vs. 39%
Taipei County 12 45% vs. 17% 52% vs. 38%
Chiayi County 1 35% vs. 34% 58% vs. 42%
Chiayi County 2 26% vs. 41% 42% vs. 57%
Kaohsiung City 1 53% vs. 25% 58% vs. 41%
Kaohsiung City 2 43% vs. 33% 49% vs. 51%
Kaohsiung City 3 44% vs. 28% 49% vs. 43%
Kaohsiung City 4 43% vs. 29% 51% vs. 47%
Kaohsiung City 5 32% vs. 40% 46% vs. 52%
Tainan City 1 47% vs. 30% 50% vs. 50%
Tainan City 2 40% vs. 38% 48% vs. 50%
Tainan County 1 31% vs. 36% 45% vs. 55%
Tainan County 2 25% vs. 42% 41% vs. 59%
Tainan County 3 32% vs. 37% 47% vs. 53%

The data above may be somewhat dated because they were taken one to three months before.  One month before the election, if a candidate should see the unfavorable poll numbers, it is certain that all stops will be pulled out to go negative and some of the mud that got slung around may just stick.
 
There is also a TVBS poll about political party support that was published on January 1, 2008.  When applied to the 34 seats in the political party section of the legislative election, the KMT should be getting 34 x 65 / (65 + 29) = 24 seats while the DPP should be getting 10 seats.  The actual results were 20 versus 14.

In hindsight, is it so hard to see a landslide coming for the KMT?  So what were the election situations that Chen Shui-bian was seeing in the streets?  How should the interpretation of the public opinion polls be re-written for history?

... In the media reports, I have seen this defense of the young girl -- she is only thirteen years old, her values and judgment are yet unformed and she is therefore not responsible; even if she lied, she cannot be held responsible for she is only a victim of the system of the parents, the school, the teachers, the media and the reporters.

This type of defense is logical, but I want to consider this matter further.  Among the doubters, some believe that "Very yellow, very violent" sounded too much like adult talk.  Thus, she was guilty of lying or colluding with the reporter.  I happen not to think so because I think that she was only using her standard narrative.  The interesting thing is why did she spontaneously say something to the camera that she did not really mean?

For the longest time, our school system has encouraged people to lie.  In the 1960's and 1970's, it was common to include clichés such as "The situation has never been better in China ..." in the opening sentence of any essay composition.  Although these types of phrases have disappeared, the habit of the big lie has not been eradicated.  Instead, they continue to show up in different forms.  The students know that they don't mean to say something, but they are still being forced to do so.  One time, my son showed me a model essay and said angrily that this was a piece of junk.  When I suggested that he did not have to use it, he said that the teacher has already threatened him with poor mid-term grades if he refused to write in that manner.

This example shows that our students are still unable to speak what they think.  They can say whatever they want in private.  But when in comes to writing essay compositions, they have to trot out all the ostentatious clichés and myths.  After toiling under this type of educational system for so long, they now have this natural habit.  When they are asked to speak in public, those words come out spontaneously without thinking.  When that little girl in Beijing faced the camera, she spoke fluently.  Such is the result of the "state ideological apparatus."

According to Althusser, the "state ideological apparatus" includes the schools as well as the media such as television.  Therefore, we cannot underestimate the impact of television.  When I watch CCTV's <Joint News Broadcast>, I find an interesting phenomenon.  Whenever something big happens, the reporters conduct street interviews and the interviewees play along perfectly by spouting phrases that are distinctly CCTV-like.  So I realized that the official version has travelled a strange journey.  When the propaganda machine gets started, the official version is implanted deeply into the subconsciousness of the people and their own thinking system is shoved aside.  Over the long term, the official version within the people's minds is perfected even as their own system becomes increasingly barren and impoverished.  By that time, when a microphone is shoved in front of them, they will spontaneously and fluently speak the official version.  It goes without say that the propaganda machine will trumpet that this is the will of the people who support a certain policy.  I think that this is the true secret in the interaction between the propaganda machine and the people.

Therefore, if we accept that the Beijing girl used some very CCTV-like phrases, then we must also admit that this type of talk has a broad foundation among the masses.  While the girl deserves our sympathy for her experience, what she said deserves our reflection.

Relevant link: "Very Yellow, Very Violent"

(1) If in the opinion of the Chief Executive an emergency has arisen, the Authority may from time to time --

(a) issue directions to the licensee concerning the programmes and messages from any specified broadcasting station and distribute those messages to subscribe; and

(b) require the licensee to receive by means of any of the station messages of from any specified broadcasting station and distribute those messages to subscribe; and

(c) require the licensee to distribute to subscribers from any of the stations messages of any kind or description.

For example, suppose that an earthquake outside Indonesia and a tsunami is expected to arrive in Hong Kong in six hours' time with significant threat to the population.  The relevant Hong Kong SAR government departments will activate the system to notify all radio/television licensees to deliver emergency messages for people to evacuate and so on.  An unlicensed pirate broadcaster will not be part of that system.  That is what Jat Sew Tong might be referring to.
 
Caveat: In the above, I am using ambiguous language because I don't know for sure what Jat Sew Tong is really referring to (and he could be talking about ambulance radio frequencies!).  I am basing my explanation upon what is common practice elsewhere (see the entry on the USA Emergency Alert System at Wikipedia).  Periodically, the American radio/television station interrupts its regular programming and runs a very annoying test (see YouTube) of its emergency alert system.  By the way, this system failed spectacularly on 9/11 in New York City because all the major radio/television stations had their transmission antennae on the top of the World Trade Center twin towers.

YZZK: Are you come up with the idea of <Lost in Beijing>?
Li: I got the inspiration from a news report in a newspaper.  I think that the changes that are occurring in China right now are astonishing.  But in a country where the economy is developing rapidly, people's hearts and minds are not changing fast enough to keep up.  There are now many new types of human relationships, of which sex is one.  That was how we came up with the creative concept.

YZZK: Why did you choose to have sex as the subject of the film, because you must know that this will be a challenge movie review system in mainland China?
Li: In the mainland Chinese edition of the film, all the sex scenes were excised.  A total of about 15 minutes were removed.  In mainland China, there are explicit regulations that buttocks must not be exhibited, no nudity is allowed and love-making must not go on for more than three seconds.  The State Administration for Radio, Film and Television removed the sex scene between the older woman and the younger man because they said that they were uncomfortable.  By contrast, it is alright for an older man to go to bed with a younger woman.  So this is a risible reason.

In the movie, the young girl was fired from the foot bathing shop and gradually turned from an innocent and pure girl into a prostitute.  They found this process to be unacceptable, so the whole episode was excised.  Also in the movie, Lin Dong was driving a car to Ping Guo's place and his car splashed some water from a puddle in the expressway.  They deleted that as well.  Could it be that they did not think that such things can occur in Beijing?  They are putting blinders on their own eyes and they refuse to accept that Beijing has prostitutes, dirty puddles and illicit gender relationships.

Many people ask me: "Why don't you go overseas to make films?" I said that China is where things are happening today.  As a Chinese film maker, I have the duty to record and present our era.  Life is harsh for mainland film directors.  If they get too close to realism, they are banned or otherwise get into trouble.  If they stray too far away from life, then everybody sense the lack of clarity even though we are all living right in the midst of it.  But I feel that we ought to be making this type of contemporary film in this era, especially since it will lead the Chinese people to reflect.

Related link:  Lost in Beijing finally gets killed  Joel Martinsen, Danwei

[in translation]

Recently, the Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies (Chinese University of Hong Kong) interviewed more than 900 Hong Kong citizens concerning the time schedule for universal suffrage.  The results showed that 72% of the citizens accepted the National People's Congress Standing Committee decision of 2012 Chief Executive universal suffrage while 21% found it unacceptable.  Also, 65% of the citizens agreed that the functional constituency seats be kept in the same proportion in the Legislative Council in 2012.  Almost 70% of the respondents believed that the central government was sincere in implementing universal suffrage in Hong Kong.  56% did not support the pan-democratic activities to fight for universal suffrage in 2012 while 36% supported them.
 
The above results are different from those found by Hong Kong University earlier.  The HKU poll found that 40% insisted on fighting for double universal suffrage in 2012 while 40% said that they will accept the NPCSC decision.  Obviously, there are vast differences between these two sets of poll results.  So which poll reflects the "will of the people"?
 
Actually, anyone who has studied statistics and learned how to conduct opinion polls would know that the survey methodology (especially the questionnaire design) can affect the outcome.  For the same subject, a different question about the same issue issued to a group with similar education, age, occupation, social and religious backgrounds can lead to widely divergent answers.
 
In the case of the IAPS CUHK study, the question was: "Last week, the National People's Congress Standing Committee decided that double universal suffrage will not be implemented in 2012 in Hong Kong.  But universal suffrage for the Chief Executive can occur in 2017.  Universal suffrage for the Legislative Council can occur afterwards.  Is this decision acceptable or unacceptable to you?"
 
On the same topic, HKU asked: "The National People's Congress Standing Committee recently made the decision to reject universal suffrage for the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council in 2012.  But the NPCSC also decided that universal suffrage for the Chief Executive can occur in 2017 and universal suffrage for the Legislative Council can occur in 2020 at the earliest.  Do you welcome or oppose this decision?"
 
The CUHK question emphasizes on whether the respondent accepts the NPCSC decision, while the HKU question emphasizes on whether the respondent agrees with the NPCSC decision.  In the CUHK poll, the respondent may accept the NPCSC decision as a matter of practical reality, even though there may be resentment and dissatisfaction.  In the HKU poll, the respondent showed the feelings towards the NPCSC decision, but it is not known whether the decision is accepted as a matter of practical reality.
 
With respect to the continued fight for double universal suffrage in 2012, the HKU question was: After the NPCSC made the decision, certain people said that they would continue to insist on double suffrage in 2012.  Do you welcome or oppose such actions?" The CUHK question was: After the NPCSC announced its decision, certain groups continued to insist on double suffrage in 2012 and they are organizing protest marches.  Do you support these actions?" In these questions, HKU is emphasizing whether the respondent supports the pan-democrats to "continue to fight for double suffrage in 2012" while the CUHK emphasis is on whether the respondent supports "people fighting for double suffrage in 2012 and organizing protest marches" after the NPCSC decision.
 
HKU wants to know whether the respondent welcomed the NPCSC decision and then whether these is support for people who continue to fight for double universal suffrage in 2012.  For a Hong Kong citizen, it is not a bad thing to have people to continue the fight!  Therefore, the HKU poll results show higher support levels.  Meanwhile, the CUHK question tied "the continue fight for double universal suffrage" with "protest marches."  So the question is turned into one about whether the respondent supports the use of protest marches to fight for double universal suffrage in 2012 without addressing whether this respondent supports the continued fight (through protest marches as well as other means).
 
This goes to show that in public opinion polls, there are many details that can affect the results.  Public opinion polls does not necessarily reflect the "true" will of the people!

(Ming Pao)  Public Opinion Poll: Citizens more concerned about economic conditions (民調：關注經濟巿民趨增)
 
(Apple Daily)  Only one-third of people satisfied with political condition (僅三分一人滿意政治環 境)

Archives