Ahead of the highly anticipated December 7 Legislative Council election in Hong Kong, a local marketing group advertised a payment of HK$150 to registered voters for simply casting a ballot, according to a recent report by local media outlet HK01. The initiative, spearheaded by iCreate Marketing, did not direct participants to vote for any specific candidate but required individuals to submit sensitive personal information—including their name, HKID number, phone number, and residential address—in advance. Payment, contingent on submitting a proof-of-vote selfie taken outside the polling station, was promised via bank transfer within one week.
The recruitment notice, circulated on November 17, targeted any registered voter regardless of their constituency. When reporters, posing as applicants, contacted the intermediary, identified only as SY, the individual encouraged applicants to refer family and friends. This strategy fueled concerns regarding the commodification of civic duty and the collection of private electoral data.
Data Collection and Client Intent
iCreate Marketing confirmed to HK01 that it was executing instructions from an undisclosed client to enlist a small number of voters, acknowledging that other firms had undertaken similar commissions. The firm admitted that the collected personal data would be transferred to the client, claiming the information was required strictly for verifying voter registration status. Public records show that iCreate Marketing, whose sole director and shareholder is listed as Tai Ho-yi, manages several social media platforms focused on campus promotions and brand marketing.
The potential ramifications of sharing bulk voter data are significant. In response, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner issued a public reminder, urging citizens to fully comprehend the purpose of any data collection and verify the legitimacy of requests before handing over personal details.
Electoral Law and Ethical Boundaries
The legality of offering monetary incentives for voting is complex under Hong Kong’s current electoral laws. While offering benefits to influence a vote for or against a specific candidate constitutes a breach of election laws, experts noted that this particular case did not stipulate a candidate preference, potentially placing it outside explicit prohibitions.
However, legal experts highlighted that current legislation forbids force or coercion in voting but does not explicitly address monetary inducements solely for participation. Should evidence arise suggesting the incentive was a disguised attempt to influence voters toward particular candidates, it could be prosecuted as bribery.
The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) maintained that if activities are designed merely to promote general participation without steering votes toward or away from specific individuals, the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance generally imposes no restrictions. The Registration and Electoral Office refrained from commenting on specific cases but confirmed that all suspected violations would be promptly referred to law enforcement for investigation.
This incident underscores a developing gray area in electoral behavior, where non-partisan financial incentives test the boundaries of campaign ethics and data privacy in a high-stakes political environment. As the election date approaches, the focus remains on ensuring that democratic processes are upheld free from undue influence or exploitation.