It is the general view of the community that the recently announced constitutional reform package for amending methods to select the Chief Executive (CE) and legislators in 2012 complies with the ruling of the National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) in 2007 as well as the Basic Law.

It reflects, society feels, an answer to general aspirations.

Nevertheless, the opposition camp has put forward ideas that are unconstitutional and made confounding remarks that need correcting.

Recently, the Civic Party and the League of Social Democrats have restated their determination to go ahead with a proposed general resignation of opposition legislators in all five geographical constituencies, while certain members of the Democratic Party, which had held reservation over the resignation idea all along, are also considering joining the move.

It must be pointed out that mass resignation to create a de facto referendum is a challenge to the national constitutional regime. China is a unitary sovereign state with highly centralized power. Under this system, local governments are not authorized to conduct referendums to change their political systems.

By pushing for a de facto referendum, the opposition camp is trying to turn the SAR into an independent political entity. They are playing with fire!

Furthmore, the opposition camp claimed that urging universal suffrage in 2012 is in line with the principle of "universal and equal suffrage" contained in Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The opposition also claims that Hong Kong's political system arose from this provision.

These statements are deliberately intended to create confusion and mislead the public.

As a matter of fact, the constitutional basis of the SAR's political regime comes from the country's Constitution and the Basic Law.

The truth is, when the ICCPR was applied to Hong Kong in 1976, Article 25 was treated as a "saving provision", meaning it was not meant to be implemented here. When the SAR came into being in 1997, the saving-provision status of that article was retained, and that remains the case up to now.

Hong Kong's constitutional development and the ultimate realization of universal suffrage is based on the Basic Law and not the ICCPR. Citing the covenant to challenge the Basic Law and NPCSC's ruling is the same as challenging the SAR's constitutional principles under the Constitution and the Basic Law.

Only by upholding the Central Government's power can we protect the principles of "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong", and a high degree of autonomy.

Also, the opposition camp alleges that the SAR government has tried to justify its failure to come up with a roadmap to universal suffrage in 2017 and 2020 by attributing it to the lack of authorization from the Central Government to do so. Basing its objections on this allegation, it calls the SAR administration a "lame duck" government.

That is an attempt to drive a wedge between the Central Government and SAR government.

Hong Kong's legal system has its foundation in the Constitution and the Basic Law. The SAR, being a local administrative unit under a unitary national political structure, derives all its power, including its high degree of autonomy, from the Central Government. It does not enjoy any residual power.

Hence the SAR's constitutional development, including appointment of the CE and principal officials as well as any amendment to the methods to select the CE and legislators, must have the participation and blessing of the Central Government.

Fixing the roadmaps for universal suffrage in 2017 and 2020 is a matter to be handled by the next SAR government and the one after next. The only thing the current administration could do as far as constitutional development is concerned is to amend the selection methods for 2012.

According to the Basic Law and NPCSC ruling, there are five steps in the legal procedure for putting universal suffrage into practice, and initiating the procedure before 2012 is out of the question.

Finally, in spite of Chief Secretary for Administration Henry Tang's call for the opposition to maintain a dialogue with the government, the opposition opposed the reform package vehemently from the start, revealing an intention to stubbornly hamper the advance of democracy in Hong Kong.

When they vetoed the reform package in 2005, their excuse was the lack of timetable for universal suffrage and the government's refusal to remove appointed district councillors (DCs).

Now NPCSC has ruled that universal suffrage can be implemented in 2017 and 2020, and the SAR government has proposed to deprive appointed DCs of the right to vote and to be elected in CE and Legislative Council elections. The opposition should have no more pretext to continue to oppose. But opposition rhetoric has changed to making accusations that the government is creating an impasse by refusing to talk about arrangements beyond 2012.

But we can see it is the opposition camp that is creating an impasse through its plan to vote en bloc.

The author is founding president of the Business and Professionals Federation of Hong Kong. The article is reproduced from the Chinese version published in Wen Wei Po yesterday.

(HK Edition 11/24/2009 page1)