The online platform Public Opinion Program (POP) of the University of Hong Kong, used by the "Occupy Central" movement, was rendered inaccessible for several hours after it had been "hacked". As a result, the organizers decided to push the voting deadline back by seven days to compensate for "lost time".

Whether the occupiers' claims are genuine or not, the "hacking" excuse changes nothing. The "Occupy Central referendum" is an unconstitutional political fraud - just like the illegal "Occupy" campaign.

The "referendum" is being held on multiple platforms. Apart from the POP-hosted voting webpage and "Occupy Central" Facebook page, voters can access it using connected desktop computers at several designated locations. People can also vote with smartphones or go to any one of the more than 20 polling stations to cast their ballots. It is not clear how the organizers are preventing cheating on these platforms.

The options which the public are expected to choose are also suspect. All three "constitutional reform plans" are slight variations of the same unconstitutional demands. They give people no real options at all. The illegal movement intends to derail Hong Kong's constitutional development which can only proceed in accordance with the Basic Law and relevant decisions of the National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC). It plans to do this by paralyzing traffic in Hong Kong's political and financial center. This could result in losses of billions of dollars, according to the estimates of several business consultants. How can any rational person condone something so criminally insane?

The law requires police permission for public gatherings such as the "Occupy Central" campaign. The aim of the campaign is to attract at least 10,000 participants. Given its well-publicized intentions, the illegal campaign's popularity has fallen to new lows in a few short months. That is not what the organizers intended when they said "Occupy Central" might employ some illegal tactics. They also tried to boost the reputation of their campaign by comparing it to the historic civil disobedience movement of Mahatma Gandhi.

To justify their criminal actions, the "Occupy" organizers aptly chose "true democracy" as their goal, which they have defined as universal suffrage without requirements for the nomination of candidates in the 2017 Chief Executive election. They insist the constitutional code in the Basic Law and relevant decisions of the NPCSC is unacceptable because it fails to meet "international standards" for universal suffrage.

Civil disobedience is actually subject to a set of widely accepted criteria. The "Occupiers" and their Western cheerleaders have yet to tell us what exactly these "international standards" are.

The original concept of civil disobedience calls for peaceful acts of non-cooperation to express opposition to a law or laws believed to be unjust. It is often called upon by those having no means of legal redress through legislative means. Its first principle is non-violence.

The "occupiers" claim their campaign targets are: Article 45 of the Basic Law, NPCSC decisions concerning the selection of the CE, and the formation of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage. But they cannot use under-representation as an excuse, because the matter is in the hands of the NPCSC. Theoretically, they should petition LegCo to pass a motion asking the CE to convince the NPCSC to amend the Basic Law.

Instead of peaceful non-cooperation, such as boycotting the next LegCo election in 2016, the organizers have decided to block traffic in Central in order to damage Hong Kong's economy and the livelihoods of millions of Hongkongers. They argue this will force some concessions out of the central government, or lead to a tough response. Such a response they believe will result in a state of emergency being declared and will shut down the city for months - if not longer. The reaction from the international community to such an "outrage" will also boost the protesters. Either way they believe they have nothing to lose. But do they?

Scores of public opinion polls, including those conducted by POP, show "Occupy Central" is increasingly unpopular among local residents. There is no doubt many people will confront the "Occupiers" when the illegal campaign starts blocking traffic. When this happens violence will be inevitable - particularly given the behavior of some members of the radical opposition. Then there are students who are too naive to see through the organizers' lies, and yet old enough to contemplate martyrdom in the name of "true democracy". They will make great front-page photos when the bloodshed occurs. So you can forget about adherence to the true principles of civil disobedience.

The author is a veteran current affairs commentator.

(HK Edition 06/25/2014 page9)