What is the purpose of all this?

All 161 candidates in Hong Kong’s December LegCo election have passed the vetting procedure performed by the Candidate Eligibility Review Committee, part of the Chief Executive’s office…

[Chief Secretary Eric] Chan said confirming the candidates’ eligibility early allowed them to begin their election campaign sooner, as the polls are less than a month away. He called on the candidates to seize the opportunity to demonstrate their aspirations and showcase the city’s “high-quality election culture” by competing on their platforms professionally and fairly.

“This will display healthy competition and a positive, high-quality election culture, embodying Hong Kong’s high-quality democracy,” he said in Cantonese.

…On Monday, the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office published an article under a pen name, hailing the 161 confirmed candidates as “patriotic, committed, competent, aspirational, and excellent.”

(And ‘high-quality’, surely?)

The office said that while some incumbent lawmakers decided not to seek re-election, more than 50 others are running again for another term. This aligns with “the principle of orderly replacement in democratic elections,” it said.

The office went on to say that the candidates should compete on their abilities and the merit of their platforms, while “ingrained bad practices” such as forming factions must be “resolutely rejected.”

They 161 presumably all passed because, in order to gain the preliminary candidacy, they had to be nominated by people who are themselves the result of similar screening and selection procedures. Why bother duplicating the process?

Under the ‘all-patriot’ system, we don’t have opposition candidates in elections any more, which is why many struggle to see the polls as real. Yet the government puts a lot of effort into making it look like an authentic election. Hence we have several different parties (all with the same pro-government platforms) apparently competing for votes. And we have what were once called debates, but are now ‘Patriots Collaborate for Good Governance’ forums…

There will be a total of 39 forums, covering the Election Committee constituency, 10 geographical constituencies and 28 functional constituencies.

Candidates and voters of the respective constituencies of all geographical constituencies, functional constituencies and the Election Committee constituency, as well as members of the public will be invited to attend the forums. The format of the forums, which may comprise self-introduction by candidates, mobilisation of campaign teams, a question-and-answer session and a debate on a specified topic, will be tailored according primarily to the respective constituencies. Candidates will be able to fully present their election platforms, viewpoints on different topics, visions and aspirations…

Attendance by members of the public is by invitation-only. The first one reportedly had no debate of any sort…

[Constitutional Affairs Minister Erick] Tsang emphasiz[ed] the enthusiastic turnout and lively campaigning atmosphere … [and] described the proceedings as smooth and the atmosphere as vibrant.

The Standard’s editorial (was this one written by a human?) says…

The official kick-off of the Legislative Council election debate was met with anticipation, yet it culminated in a sense of unfulfilled promise.

While the atmosphere was charged with potential, the debate itself failed to deliver the intellectual fireworks the public had hoped for. Instead of a dynamic clash of ideas, the session was dominated by a parade of well-prepared but ultimately monochromatic presentations. 

New contestants, though polished, largely stuck to introducing their platforms and personal credentials. The crucial element of a mutual questioning session that forces candidates to think on their feet and defend their policies – was conspicuously absent. While supporters in the audience did their best to stimulate energy, the stage itself lacked the spontaneous combustion that defines a truly compelling political debate. In a nutshell, the event proceeded without a spark.

…The future debates in this election cycle must be restructured to be more interactive and confrontational. The goal should be to create a spectacle of substance that not only informs but also energizes the electorate, giving them a compelling reason to care and, ultimately, to vote.

(Pretty sure that’s not AI.)

In fairness, people watching the events livestreamed might at least get an idea of who the many unheard-of candidates are.

The weird thing about this is that the CCP specifically and openly rejects multiparty democracy and contested elections (and separation of powers/checks and balances). Why bother pretending to have a system that Beijing itself says is unsuited for China?