Hong Kong's efforts to reform the selection methods for the Chief Executive (CE) and Legislative Council (LegCo) elections in 2012 seem to be stalemated.

The boycott by the Civic Party and the League of Social Democrats of the government's reform package is predictable, while the Alliance for Universal Suffrage, which has accused the government of making too few concessions, has also rejected it.

To break the stalemate, either the SAR government or the alliance must back down. The question is: who will make the first move?

The alliance has laid down two conditions which the government must meet before the alliance would be willing to give the reform package its blessing.

One of the conditions is the promise of "true universal suffrage" in the CE election in 2017 and LegCo election in 2020.

The other is the pledge for the abolition of "functional constituencies" in 2020.

Can the SAR government accept the two conditions?

The answer obviously is "no". Because the government has its back against the barrier of law and has no room for retreat.

In his speech delivered on the day the SAR government unveiled the reform package, Qiao Xiaoyang, deputy secretary-general of the National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC), gave a very clear explanation of why the country's top law-making body stipulated that universal suffrage "may be" implemented, and not "shall be". He pointed out that this is totally consistent with statutory procedure.

The procedure in question contains five steps: the SAR government proposes, NPC agrees, LegCo endorses, CE agrees, and NPC ratifies or puts it on record.

Under the law these five procedural requirements must be fulfilled step by step and according to that sequence. None of the parties involved is authorized to decide for others.

While shedding light on the rationale behind the NPCSC's inability to make such a promise, Qiao stressed firmly that the NPCSC's decision on the timetable for implementation of universal suffrage in Hong Kong is "very serious", and was made after "thorough deliberation". "Its authority and legal effect is beyond any doubt."

The meaning of his words could not have been clearer, but some people still have chosen not to understand them.

As for whether functional constituencies ought to be abolished or not, there is no consensus in society as yet, but those in favor of retaining this institution hold a slight majority.

Such being the case, it would be impossible for the present administration to make a decision at this juncture, besides which, it would be undemocratic if it did so.

We can easily see that today's deadlock is the result of the alliance's error in setting the price too high. Politics is the art of compromise. The party that could put an end to the present impasse is the one that caused it in the first place.

The Democratic Party has shown admirable political courage in deciding early on not to dance to the radicals' tune and by proposing to resolve the dissension through communication.

Now is the time for the alliance to demonstrate the same courage once again.

(HK Edition 05/06/2010 page1)