Negotiation is a must

The past month could be considered one of the most dramatic times in Hong Kong history as the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) outlined a clear direction for the Chief Executive election in 2017.

The opportunity to choose a leader by democratic election is a significant development - the public can express its will by voting. Candidates will need to be creative and pragmatic while at the same time formulating policy positions.

However, some sectors of society, in particular, the "pan-democrats", are unhappy about conditions imposed by the NPCSC. The "pan-democrats" are therefore threatening to occupy Central and organize strikes in schools.

Democratic activists are understandably bitter over attempts by the NPCSC to set certain limitations on Hong Kong constitutional reform - such as the 2017 Chief Executive election. The source of this bitter feeling can be traced back to Chris Patten's 1994 electoral reforms. These were unilateral actions by the last governor to create the illusion that Beijing would eventually back down in the face of Hong Kong's demands for democracy.

But this was wrong. After 1997, the central government continued to implement democracy, but it did so according to the Basic Law. At the same time, new choices for determining Hong Kong's future, along with demographic changes, have made it harder for the "pan-democrats" to understand the hearts and minds of voters.

Apparently, some "pan-democrats" have resorted to depicting China as the ultimate colonizer, who must be confronted at all times. But does the public believe it is good for Hong Kong to confront the central government at a time when Hong Kong increasingly relies on the country for economic development? Won't the public hope politicians spend more time solving social problems, such as the aging population, the widening income-gap and housing?

A pragmatic step for "pan-democrats" would be to negotiate with Beijing and work out a plan acceptable to all stakeholders in the 2017 CE election.

In addition, the "pan-democrats" and their supporters should spend more time studying Chinese history and culture to find out more about how the country works.

Jonathan Mok, history teacher at a local international baccalaureate school

Rules of the game

Every game has its own rules - whether it is a soccer match, or a chess tournament; all players must stick to the rules. Infringements lead to disqualification. The same applies to our constitutional development.

The Basic Law and decisions by the National People's Congress Standing Committee shape Hong Kong's legal framework. Any Chief Executive candidate nomination systems falling outside of this legal framework cannot be considered.

Following the end of the first stage of consultation for the constitutional development, more suggestions are still welcome. The pro-establishment and the "pan-democratic" camps have come up with different ideas. The agenda at present should include identifying feasible, legitimate schemes for further discussion. Dialogue is always better than confrontation. Arguments should be supported with facts - not merely based on political prejudices. Recent debates on public nomination and party nomination are pointless if not irrational. Both suggestions are clearly outside the parameters of the Basic Law.

We also observe another phenomenon: a campaign which is always trying to get the public's attention - "Occupy Central". But the campaign is a mere farce. The campaigners repeatedly threaten to launch it, threatening law and order by illegal means, with no intention of engaging in dialogue to formulate a mutually agreeable scheme. "Occupy" simply ignores the views of the majority and offers no constructive contribution.

Instead, the campaigners are increasing the risk of economic uncertainty and jeopardizing the successful implementation of universal suffrage in Hong Kong.

The door for dialogue is still open, as long as the bottom-line of conformity with the legal framework of the Basic Law is observed. This is the fundamental criterion for universal suffrage.

"All or nothing" does not fit the current situation. The "pan-democrats" should be more realistic and seize this opportunity before it is too late.

Once it is lost, who knows how many years we may have to wait before we have another chance.

Chu Kar-kin, chief convener of Youth Shadow Cabinet Project

(HK Edition 09/23/2014 page7)